WESTERN AUSTRALIAN EMERGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT … Documents... · 2016-11-07 · north, moving...

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN EMERGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT GUIDE 2015

V 1.0 2015

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN EMERGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT GUIDE • PAGE 2

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN EMERGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT GUIDE 2015

Acknowledgements:

This document contains Standards Australia Ltd and ISO copyrighted material that is distributed by SAI Global on Standards Australia Ltd and ISO’s behalf. It may be reproduced in accordance with the terms of SAI Global Ltd’s Licence 1411-c083 to the Commonwealth of Australia (“the Licensee”). All licensed copies of this document must be obtained from the Licensee. Standards Australia Ltd and ISO’s material is not for resale, reproduction or distribution in whole or in part without written permission from SAI Global Ltd: tel + 61 2 8206 6355 or [email protected].

The State Risk Project is an initiative of the State Government of Western Australia and is joint funded under the Commonwealth Government’s National Partnership Agreement on Natural Disaster Resilience.

Disclaimer:

The information contained in this guide is provided by the SEMC voluntarily as a public service. This guide has been prepared in good faith and is derived from sources believed to be reliable and accurate at the time of publication. Nevertheless, the reliability and accuracy of the information cannot be guaranteed and the SEMC expressly disclaims liability for any act or omission done or not done in reliance on the information and for any consequences, whether direct or indirect, arising from such act or omission. This guide is intended to be a guide only and readers should obtain their own independent advice and make their own necessary inquiries.

Images:

Front & back cover image:

• New growth in the Pilbara – courtesy of Elly Lukale

Page 3 image:

• Tropical Cyclone Billy December 2008 - courtesy of NASA

Page 6 images:

• Plane over Margaret River bushfires – courtesy of Sean Blocksridge

• Lightning – courtesy of Daniel Hill

• First signs of green (Margaret River bush fires) – Becca Bolton

Page 8 images:

• Carnarvon floods (2010)

• Burst waterpipes in Wellington Street, Perth (2013)

• Fire outbreak, Wheatbelt region (2010) - courtesy of Thomas Dagger

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN EMERGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT GUIDE • PAGE 2 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN EMERGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT GUIDE • PAGE 3


Table of Contents

PAR

T 1

PAR

T 2

PAR

T 3

List of figures ........................................................................................................................... 5List of tables ............................................................................................................................ 5

Ch 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6 1.1. Guidebook structure ................................................................................................ 7 1.2. Toolbox .................................................................................................................... 7 1.3. Document outputs ................................................................................................... 8Ch 2. Emergency risk management ........................................................................................ 9 2.1. Risk management principles ................................................................................. 10 2.2. Risk management framework .................................................................................11 2.3. Risk management process .................................................................................... 12Ch 3. Workshop method ........................................................................................................ 13 3.1. Before the workshop ............................................................................................. 13 3.2. During the workshop ............................................................................................. 14 3.3. After the workshop ................................................................................................. 15

PAGE

Ch 4. Communication and consultation ................................................................................. 17 4.1. Objective ............................................................................................................... 17 4.2. Output .................................................................................................................... 17 4.3. Actions ................................................................................................................... 17 4.4. Communication and consultation checklist ........................................................... 18Ch 5. Establish the scope ...................................................................................................... 19 5.1. Objective ............................................................................................................... 19 5.2. Output .................................................................................................................... 19 5.3. Actions ................................................................................................................... 19 5.4. Establish the scope checklist ................................................................................ 23Ch 6. Risk identification ......................................................................................................... 24 6.1. Risk register .......................................................................................................... 24 6.2. Objective ............................................................................................................... 25 6.3. Output .................................................................................................................... 25 6.4. Actions ................................................................................................................... 25 6.5. Risk identification checklist .................................................................................... 35Ch 7. Risk analysis ................................................................................................................ 37 7.1. Objective ............................................................................................................... 37 7.2. Output .................................................................................................................... 37 7.3. Actions ................................................................................................................... 38 7.4. Update risk register with risk analysis information ................................................ 45 7.5. Risk analysis checklist ........................................................................................... 45Ch 8. Risk evaluation............................................................................................................. 47 8.1. Objective ............................................................................................................... 47 8.2. Output .................................................................................................................... 47 8.3. Actions ................................................................................................................... 47 8.4. Risk evaluation checklist ....................................................................................... 51Ch 9. Risk treatment .............................................................................................................. 52 9.1. Objective ............................................................................................................... 52 9.2. Output .................................................................................................................... 52 9.3. Actions ................................................................................................................... 52 9.4. Risk treatment checklist ........................................................................................ 55Ch 10. Monitoring and review ................................................................................................ 56 10.1. Objective ............................................................................................................. 56 10.2. Output .................................................................................................................. 56 10.3 Actions .................................................................................................................. 56Ch 11. Definitions .................................................................................................................. 59Ch 12. References................................................................................................................. 61Appendix A – Local risk assessment summary document..................................................... 62Appendix B – Workshop checklist ......................................................................................... 66Appendix C – Establish the scope ......................................................................................... 67Appendix D – Risk analysis ................................................................................................... 68Appendix E – Key impact area definitions ............................................................................. 74Appendix F – Risk identification and risk statements ............................................................ 75Appendix G – Risk priority ..................................................................................................... 78Appendix H – Hazard specific emergency management plans ............................................. 81


Figure 1: Risk management – principles, framework and process. ....................................................................................................................... 9Figure 2: Eleven principles of the ERM process.................................................................................................................................................. 10Figure 3: Risk management framework................................................................................................................................................................11Figure 4: ERM process. ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 12Figure 5: Methodology of the ERM process, showing which phases are completed before, during and after the workshop. ............................ 13Figure 6: ERM process – Communication and consultation................................................................................................................................ 17Figure 7: ERM process – Establish the scope..................................................................................................................................................... 19Figure 8: ERM process – Risk identification. ....................................................................................................................................................... 24Figure 9: Five key impact areas of the community environment. ........................................................................................................................ 27Figure 10: Example of how to calculate AEP using a calculator. ......................................................................................................................... 30Figure 11: Examples of areas of the community that may be vulnerable to the impacts from hazard(s). ........................................................... 31Figure 12: Number of risk statements required for two example hazard scenarios. ........................................................................................... 32Figure 13: Fictional examples of risk statements with fundamental components that contribute to the risk statement highlighted for clarity. .... 33Figure 14: ERM process – Risk analysis. ............................................................................................................................................................ 37Figure 15: Determining the probability of a risk statement occurring. ................................................................................................................. 42Figure 16: Example of using AEP and risk statement likelihood to calculate likelihood level. ............................................................................. 42Figure 17: Example of determining risk. .............................................................................................................................................................. 42Figure 18: ERM process – Evaluate the risks. .................................................................................................................................................... 47Figure 19: Decision point questions. ................................................................................................................................................................... 49Figure 20: ERM process – Risk treatment........................................................................................................................................................... 52Figure 21: Components required for a treatment plan......................................................................................................................................... 54Figure 22: ERM Process – Monitoring and review. ............................................................................................................................................. 56

List of Figures

Table 1: Workshop agenda example. .................................................................................................................................................................. 15Table 2: Communication and consultation plan example. ................................................................................................................................... 18Table 3: Example of Project Plan......................................................................................................................................................................... 22Table 4: The 27 prescribed hazards the state is exposed to, as identified in the Emergency Act 2005 and Emergency Regulations 2006. ...... 26Table 5: Aspects required for hazard scenario development with two fictional scenarios as examples. ............................................................. 29Table 6: Example of a Risk Register. ................................................................................................................................................................... 34Table 7: Consequence table used to assign levels of consequence. .................................................................................................................. 40Table 8: Likelihood level. ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 41Table 9: Risk matrix. ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 43Table 10: Confidence level table.......................................................................................................................................................................... 44Table 11: Updated Risk Register example. .......................................................................................................................................................... 45Table 12: Priority descriptions.............................................................................................................................................................................. 48Table 13: Updated Risk Register example. ......................................................................................................................................................... 50Table 14: Examples of treatment approaches. .................................................................................................................................................... 53Table 15: Updated Risk Register example. ......................................................................................................................................................... 55Table 16: Abridged examples of change in the community environment context. ............................................................................................... 57Table 17: Glossary. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 59Table 18: Tasks to do and materials required for the risk analysis workshop. ..................................................................................................... 66Table 19: Project Plan template. .......................................................................................................................................................................... 67Table 20: Qualitative descriptors of control strength and expediency. ................................................................................................................. 68Table 21: Level of existing control matrix............................................................................................................................................................. 69Table 22: Environment impact definitions. ........................................................................................................................................................... 69Table 23: Worked example of a Risk Register based on a fictional flood scenario. ............................................................................................ 70Table 24: Risk Register template. ........................................................................................................................................................................ 72Table 25: Key impact area definitions. ................................................................................................................................................................. 74Table 26: Hazard scenario development template. ............................................................................................................................................. 75Table 27: Priority descriptions.............................................................................................................................................................................. 78Table 28: Priority levels at highest confidence..................................................................................................................................................... 79Table 29: Priority levels at high confidence. ........................................................................................................................................................ 79Table 30: Priority levels at moderate confidence. ................................................................................................................................................ 79Table 31: Priority levels at low confidence. .......................................................................................................................................................... 80Table 32: Priority levels at lowest confidence. ..................................................................................................................................................... 80Table 33: Hazard specific emergency management plans. ................................................................................................................................. 81

List of Tables

PAGE


Intro

ducti

on

Chapter 1: IntroductionWestern Australia (WA) stretches nearly 2500 km from north to south, a distance spanning 23 degrees of latitude. This spread encompasses several climatic zones from tropical in the far north, moving through grassland, desert, subtropical and on to temperate regions in the south west. On a global scale, such broad climatic variation and diversity for a state is rare.

With WA covering nearly one-third of the Australian continent, the size, remoteness and diversity presents a broad range of challenges for emergency management.

In addition to the infrequent threat from earthquakes and tsunamis, destructive storms, floods, cyclones and bushfires are significant seasonal hazards faced by the state each year to varying degrees.

The state is also exposed to a range of man-made hazards such as chemical and oil spills (on-shore and off-shore), major rail, road and air crashes, and energy supply disruptions. The state’s ongoing population expansion and its developing natural resource-based economy, further increase exposure to these risks.

In recent years WA has experienced a range of emergencies that have resulted in loss of life and damage to private and public property. Several of these emergency events including flood, fire, cyclone, storm, human epidemic and marine transport emergency have required a state-level response. There have also been many regional and local emergencies.

These events have caused significant social and economic costs. The state aims to reduce these costs by employing Emergency Risk Management (ERM). This process seeks to identify, analyse, evaluate and treat sources of risk prior to, during and after an emergency event.

This guidebook (the Western Australian Emergency Risk Management Guide 2015) offers assistance to those seeking to undertake ERM. It is primarily intended for use by local authorities, to facilitate the risk management process and development of emergency risk management plans. It aligns with the 2015 National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines (NERAG) but has been adapted to the Western Australian context.

In accordance with State Emergency Management Policy Statement 3.206, ERM planning must be undertaken in accordance with this ERM Guide. The ERM plans are to be developed, led and administrated by the local government (LG) and Local Emergency Management Committee (LEMC) (State EM Prevention Procedure 1 – Emergency Risk Management Planning).

Ch 1


1.1. Guidebook structureThis guide is written to assist the risk assessment team to complete the ERM process in line with the NERAG:

Part 1. Introduction and background (Chapters 1 to 3):

Explains the significance of the ERM process, its principles, practice, and framework, and its context within WA. It also details the method used to conduct the process within a workshop environment.

Part 2. Risk Management process (Chapters 4 to 10):

Describes the steps to be conducted before, during and after a workshop including the main five phases of the ERM process. Each chapter has been set out with the following structure:

1. Description of the step and why it is necessary

2. Objectives of the step

3. The outputs of the step

4. The actions necessary to complete the step

5. How to complete the actions

6. Checklist of tasks to be completed

Part 3. Appendices:

Provides a range of templates and tables which may be useful when conducting the ERM process.

1.2. Toolbox

To assist the ERM process, a toolbox to accompany this guidebook will be available on the SEMC website (www.semc.wa.gov.au). The toolbox consists of:

• The Western Australian Emergency Risk Management Guide 2015 (this guide).

• WA Emergency Risk Management Guide Video – provides an introduction to this guide and to the tools available on the SEMC website.

• Western Australian Risk Register (WARR) Tool – An Excel spreadsheet where you can input your data throughout the ERM process. It will do all necessary mathematical calculations, including the assignment of risk levels.

• Tailored Consequence Table – An Excel spreadsheet which will generate a consequence table specific to your community.

• Workshop presentation – For use in the workshop environment. The presentation will assist in initiating discussion in the workshop and are supported by facilitator notes for ease of use.

• Criteria Tables 0 Consequence table0 Likelihood level table0 Risk level matrix0 Confidence level table0 Priority level tables0 Control level tables

• Generic Risk Statements Database Tool – A spreadsheet containing risk statements which can be tailored to your suit your community.

Ch 1

Introduction


• Templates – Blank templates of the documents that should be developed during the ERM process.

0 Risk Register Template0 Project Plan Template0 Hazard Scenario Template0 Risk Statements Template for Workshop Participants0 Local Level Risk Assessment Summary Document0 ERM Quarterly Report (done by consultant to update LG)0 Final Report Criteria (done by LG/LEMC following consultant’s activities)

1.3. Risk Assessment Document Outputs

State EM Prevention Procedure 1 – Emergency Risk Management Planning requires that local governments are to contribute to the development and maintenance of an ERM plan for hazards relevant to their locality. The ERM plans are to be developed, led and administered by the LG and LEMC.

ERM is an ongoing process; therefore communication and consultation amongst those with responsibilities in EM is key to ensuring a safer community. It is important for local government to maintain responsibility for the emergency risk assessment whilst gaining valuable input from other relevant agencies.

To help inform the LEMC, a ‘Local Level Risk Assessment Summary Document’ is to be completed for all relevant hazards. The document should detail the hazards assessed, the scenarios used for assessment, workshop attendance and identified risks prioritised with preliminary treatment strategy suggestions. A template for this document can be found in Appendix A and is also available for download from the SEMC website (www.semc.wa.gov.au).

The Local Level Risk Assessment Summary Document can help to inform ERM plans. It should be tabled at the LEMC and then at the District Emergency Management Committee (DEMC) for comment from Hazard Management Agencies (HMAs) and other contributing parties to aid and further inform treatment strategies, with the aim of reducing risk to the people and increasing community safety.

Intro

ducti

on

Ch 1


Chapter 2. Emergency risk managementRisk is defined as ‘the combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences’.1 Emergency Risk Management is defined as ‘a systematic process which contributes to the wellbeing of communities and the environment. The process considers the likely effects of hazardous events and the controls by which they can be minimised’.1 ERM is composed of three distinct elements: the risk management principles, the risk management framework and the risk management process (Figure 1), which are outlined in the 2015 National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines (NERAG).

Figure 1: Risk management – principles, framework and process.2

The ERM principles create the mindset needed by organisations to conduct effective ERM and outline the manner in which to undertake the ERM process. The ERM framework is the ‘overarching governance arrangement’ (p11, NERAG) that is needed to ensure the ERM process occurs and that the results are noted and implemented. A good framework creates the space and support needed to make sure the process can be completed effectively. The ERM process are the actions which are undertaken to look at the actual risks facing a community.

Ch 2

Emergency risk m

anagement

1 UNISDR - Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction.2 Adapted from AS/NZS ISO 31000 – Reproduced under SAI Global copyright Licence 1411-c083.

ERM process

ERM framework

ERM principles


2.1. Risk management principlesIn order to be effective, ERM should follow the 11 key principles that lay a good foundation for the process (Figure 2).

Ch 2Em

erge

ncy

risk

man

agem

ent

Ch 2

Figure 2: Eleven principles of the ERM process.2

2 Adapted from AS/NZS ISO 31000 – Reproduced under SAI Global copyright Licence 1411-c083.

Ensure the wellbeing and sustainability of human health, environment, economy, public administration and social setting of a community.

ERM is a normal part of an organisation’s, government’s or community’s operations.

ERM supports decision-making and informs prioritisation of risk reduction activities.

ERM acknowledges that uncertainty is a natural part of the process, as the future cannot be known.

ERM needs to be systematic and structured in order to generate consistent, reliable and comparable results and to do so in a reasonable timeframe.

ERM is based on current information from a broad range of sources and acknowledges gaps in information.

ERM is adapted to fit the context of the situation.

ERM takes into consideration the capabilities, perceptions and intentions of people involved.

Stakeholders and particularly decisions-makers should be involved throughout the process. The justifications for any decisions should be made clear.

ERM is a dynamic process. Hazards and emergencies will change with time. Ongoing reviews identify any change in risk.

ERM contributes to the development and implementation of strategies that improve a government’s, organisation’s or community’s capabilities.

Based on the best available information

Transparent and inclusive

Facilitate continual improvement

Dynamic, continuous, and responsive to change

Take human and cultural factors into account

Tailored

Systematic, structured and timely

Explicitly address uncertainty

Part of decision making

Integral part of organisational processes

Create and protect value

Principles of the ERM process

Explanation


2.2. Risk management framework

The risk management framework (Figure 3) facilitates that risk information is “adequately reported and used in decision making at relevant levels”.3 It ensures that the appropriate pathways of communication are established and there is a commitment by leadership.

The main components include:• Mandate and commitment:

Demonstrated support for the process by the organisation’s leadership (e.g. managers). This is essential for the process to be successful.

• Framework design:

The structures that will keep the process on track. Things to consider are:

o understanding the context of where the process occurs (e.g. culture of organisations)

o establishing accountability measures

o assigning responsibility for integrating risk management into the organisation

o establishing internal and external communication and reporting lines

• Implementation:

The creation of programs that will implement the framework and the risk management process.

• Monitoring, review and improvement cycle:

This is to ensure the framework (organisational structures and commitment) are still working and improving over time.

It is unlikely that the nature of each of these components will be discrete as shown here. Existing organisational or administrative measures may aid the process; but the need for commitment by leadership and the appropriate governance, and administrative structures cannot be underestimated. The ERM process may produce results without implementing the framework but it could be that the results are not taken up by decision makers because the appropriate reporting structures were not put in place first.

Figure 3: Risk management framework.2

Ch 2

Emergency risk m

anagement

2 Adapted from AS/NZS ISO 31000 – Reproduced under SAI Global copyright Licence 1411-c083.3 Source: Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department, accessed under Creative Commons BY licence.

Implementation of risk management

Design of framework for managing risk

Continuous improvement

and review

Mandate and commitment


2.3. Risk management process

The five main phases are: 1. Establish the scope: Allows stakeholders to agree on the overall objectives and the scope within which they will operate. It defines the community environment and any potential issues that may affect the ERM process.

2. Risk identification: Identifies and describes the nature of the hazards, the vulnerabilities of the community and identifies the potential risks the community is facing.

3. Risk analysis: Examines the risk(s), considering their likelihood and consequence(s) and assigns levels of risk.

4. Risk evaluation: Compares the risks with the set evaluation criteria and decides which risks require treatment and assigns priorities.

5. Risk treatment: Selects and implements appropriate treatments to deal with risks.

Each step is supported by two activities:

• Communication Aims to ensure two-way communication with internaland consultation: and external stakeholders throughout the process.

• Monitoring and review: Allows for ongoing improvement of the process.

The risk management process is a system involving five main phases supported by ongoing communication, consultation, monitoring and review (Figure 4).

Emergency Risk M

anagement

Ch 2

Figure 4: ERM process.2

Ch 3Em

erge

ncy

risk

man

agem

ent

Ch 2


Workshop

Establish the scope

Risk identification

Risk analysis

Risk evaluation

Risk treatment

Com

mun

icati

on a

nd c

onsu

ltatio

nM

onitor and review


Emergency Risk M

anagement

Chapter 3. Workshop methodArmed with an understanding of the foundational principles of ERM and the necessary support mechanisms for the process to succeed, the next step is to figure out how to practically carry out the ERM process.

There are 138 local governments (at the time of publishing) within WA, which vary by size, location and resourcing. Each local government and associated LEMC is at a different stage in their ERM process and often have access to limited resources with which to complete it.

Experience conducting risk assessments at the state and district level has shown that a workshop environment, with relevant stakeholders in attendance, is the most effective format for risk assessments. It gives stakeholders the opportunity to openly exchange knowledge and information.

Where a broad range of expertise and knowledge is used, a workshop can build a comprehensive and shared understanding of the risks posed to an individual community. For example health professionals may require information about road access to assess the risks to the health of the residents in the area. This information about road access may need to be provided by other stakeholders such as Main Roads or emergency services.

The ERM process tasks are therefore explained in this guide in terms of what needs to be done before, during and after the workshop (Figure 5).

3.1. Before the workshopThe key tasks to be undertaken before the workshop are:

Risk identification

Risk analysis

Risk evaluation

Risk treatment

Establish the scope

Monitor and Review

Figure 5: The ERM Process, showing which phases are completed before, during and after the workshop.

1. Assemble a risk assessment team- The team will organise and conduct the ERM process. It should consist of two to four people with tasks and

responsibilities assigned appropriately (e.g. team leader, facilitator etc.). Ideally, these individuals would be part of the LEMC, and at least one person a LG staff member. This team will be conducting all the following tasks.

2. Create a Communication and Consultation Plan (Chapter 4)- Develop a plan that will keep all stakeholders informed of the progress and outcomes. This plan will outline

communication with key experts, workshop participants and executives of LG and LEMC.

3. Identify and engage with key stakeholder group (Chapter 5)- This is small group (6-8 people) who have expert knowledge of the chosen hazard(s) and local knowledge of

the area being assessed.

4. Determine hazards to be assessed (Chapter 6, Action 1)- Consider potential hazards and hazard source(s) to determine most relevant hazards to assess.

5. Identify critical vulnerabilities (Chapter 6, Action 2)- Determine elements at risk in the area being assessed (e.g. power station in local government area (LGA)).

6. Develop worst-case scenarios (Chapter 6, Action 3)- Key stakeholder group to develop the credible worst-case scenarios for chosen hazards.

Ch 3

BEFOREthe workshop

DURINGthe workshop

AFTERthe workshop

Ch 3

Workshop m

ethod


7. Write risk statements (Chapter 6, Action 5)- Key stakeholder group to write risk statements which describe the relationship between

hazard, risk and the consequences.

8. Identity potential risk workshop participants (Chapter 5, Action 1)- Within the workshop, it is important to facilitate discussion amongst all stakeholders in order

to consider varying opinions and knowledge and reach a credible and conclusive result. To do this, it is essential to have the right people in the room with the right knowledge to inform the process.

9. Workshop logistics- There are a number of different tasks to complete before the workshop to ensure it runs

smoothly on the day and the focus remains on collecting valuable data. These tasks include sending an agenda prior to the workshop, organising an appropriate venue, arranging catering and facilities, etc. A workshop checklist can be found in Appendix B and used to ensure everything is complete.

3.2. During the workshopDuring the workshop it is important to encourage discussion and reach fair and valuable conclusions. In order to do this, it is essential that all participants have a shared understanding of what is required and expected from the beginning. This can be done at the start of the workshop by:

• Explaining the objective of the workshop and the intended outputs

• Presenting the context of the hazard to be assessed

Note: Videos are available on the SEMC website which can be used in the workshop to establish the context of the hazard. The hazard video series is still under development and will be added to in due course.

• Presenting and highlighting vulnerabilities within the scope of your assessment that may be impacted and what these general impacts may be

• Presenting the credible worst-case scenario that will be used for the risk analysis

• Presenting and explaining the risk criteria and process that will be used to conduct the risk analysis.

It is often beneficial if these presentations are divided between the facilitator and stakeholder such as the hazard management agency (HMA) representative for the hazard being assessed as they are likely to contribute specialist knowledge. Appendix H contains a list of the HMAs and controlling agencies for all 27 prescribed hazards.

These steps ensure that all participants are assessing the same risk and are aware of the scope of the assessment. Roles and responsibilities for the above should be defined in your Project Plan (Chapter 5).

An example of the way a workshop may be run is presented in Table 1. This example shows a workshop which addresses one hazard; it is possible to address more than one hazard in a day.

In the risk analysis portion of the workshop, participants are asked to collectively assign consequence, likelihood, confidence and risk levels to a series of risk statements. A number of tools are available on the SEMC website to aid in this including the WARR Tool, the tailored consequence tables and risk criteria tables.

Wor

ksho

p m

etho

d

Ch 3


3.3. After the workshopAfter results have been compiled, the following steps can be completed:

1. Risk evaluation (Chapter 8)- This step involves discussing the risk assessment results from the workshop. It will be

useful to conduct an analysis of results to determine if there are common elements at risk (e.g. certain bridges) regardless of the hazard. A decision making process needs to be carried out to determine if the risks are acceptable, if something could be done to lower the risk and which risks to treat first.

2. Risk treatment (Chapter 9)- The purpose of this step is to determine and implement the most appropriate action(s) for

risks requiring treatment. The results of the risk assessment and risk evaluation will help to inform risk treatments.

3. Monitoring and review (Chapter 10)- All stages of the process are subject to regular checks to ensure that information is relevant

and up to date and that the most efficient ERM approach is in place. Monitoring and review should be ongoing to account for any changes either in the community environment itself or the risk.

No Item Presenter Time1 Introduction and Responsibilities Workshop facilitator 10:002 Establish Hazard Context Stakeholder (e.g. HMA) 10:153 Vulnerabilities and Impacts for area Stakeholder (e.g. LG) 10:454 Presentation of Hazard Scenario Stakeholder (e.g. HMA) 11:005 Introduction to the Risk Assessment Process Workshop facilitator 11:106 Risk Analysis Workshop facilitator 11:207 Lunch 12:158 Risk Analysis continued Workshop facilitator 12:4510 Debrief and Evaluation Workshop facilitator 14:20

Finish 14:30

Table 1: Example of a workshop agenda.

Ch 3

Workshop m

ethod


BEFOREthe workshop


BEFOREthe workshop

Chapter 4. Communication and consultationCommunication and consultation are fundamental throughout the ERM process (Figure 6), and should be ongoing with both internal and external stakeholders. It is vital to ensure that all those involved are kept well informed, and invited to contribute during every stage of the process.

Figure 6: ERM process – Communication and consultation.2

4.1. ObjectiveTo ensure effective communication throughout the ERM process.

4.2. Output (1) An established plan detailing method(s) of ongoing communication which keeps all stakeholders well informed.

(2) A transparent process whereby information and views can continually be exchanged.

(3) Stakeholders are actively involved in decision-making.

4.3. Actions

1 Identify all key stakeholders, including internal and external participants involved in the ERM process

2 Establish an agreed plan detailing the method(s) of ongoing communication and consultation

3 Implement the plan and where necessary make adjustments based on feedback

Relationship building and communication with stakeholders should commence prior to any formal start of the risk assessment process. Plans for communication and consultation should be developed at an early stage and should address the risk, its sources, its consequences and the measures being taken to address it.

It is critical to ensure that stakeholders understand the basis on which decisions are made and the reasons why particular actions are necessary.

Ch 4

Comm

unication and consultation


Workshop

Establish the scope

Risk identification

Risk analysis

Risk evaluation

Risk treatmentCOM

MU

NIC

ATIO

N A

ND

CON

SULT

ATIO

NM

onitor and review


BEFOREthe workshop

Com

mun

icatio

n an

d co

nsul

tatio

n

The process of communication and consultation should consider:

• The type of information you are communicating.

• The presentation of information, ensuring it is user-friendly and engaging.

• The audience receiving the information: it may be necessary to present messages in different ways for different groups of people.

An example communication and consultation plan is presented in Table 2.

At all times ensure that communication remains clear and unambiguous. !Stakeholder’s views on risk may differ depending on their values, needs, assumptions and concerns. Differences in perception should be identified, recorded and addressed early in the process. !

Key stakeholder Method of communication

Time scale Purpose

Key stakeholders involved in developing workshop

Meeting Start of process To discuss the risk assessment process and establish tasks and responsibilities

Meeting 2 months prior to workshop To develop hazard scenariosRisk assessment team

Email Weekly To keep team updatedMeetings Weekly / Bi-weekly as

necessaryTo ensure tasks are completed as appropriate

Workshop participants

Letter 1 month before workshop Invite participantsEmail 1 week before workshop Confirmation and reminderWorkshop 1 month after initial

communicationRisk assessment workshop

Table 2: Communication and consultation plan example.

Ch 4

Assemble a risk assessment team and assign a team leader and/or facilitator to run the workshop.

Establish an agreed communication and consultation plan detailing the method(s) of ongoing internal and external communication and consultation.

Implement the communication and consultation plan and where necessary make adjustments based on feedback.

4.4. Communication and consultation checklistYou should have completed the following ‘Communication and consultation’ tasks before moving on:


BEFOREthe workshopChapter 5. Establish the scope

Establishing the scope is the first phase (Figure 7) and is fundamental to allow stakeholders to agree on a common understanding of objectives and the risk assessment within which they will operate. It defines assumptions about the community environment which allows the ERM approach to be tailored appropriately.

Figure 7: ERM process – Establish the scope.2

5.1. Objective • To agree upon a common understanding of the aims of the ERM process, to ensure that all relevant risks

are considered.

• To develop a common understanding of the community’s environment within which the ERM process takes place.

5.2. Output (1) A mutual agreement about the scope of the project, the community context and the risk criteria being

used.

(2) A shared understanding of the context in which the scope of the project and the risk criteria are defined.

(3) An established, mutually agreed Project Plan, detailing key characteristics.

5.3. Actions:

1 Identify all stakeholders

2 Develop shared understanding of objectives, scope and risk criteria

3 Develop a Project Plan

Ch 5

Establish the scope


Workshop

ESTABLISH THE SCOPE

Risk identification

Risk analysis

Risk evaluation

Risk treatment

Com

mun

icati

on a

nd c

onsu

ltatio

nM

onitor and review


BEFOREthe workshop

Establish the scope

Action 1. Identify all stakeholdersThe effectiveness of the ERM process is dependent on getting the right stakeholders participating in the workshop. Consequently, it is important to communicate with stakeholders as early as possible to ensure they can participate in the ERM process. A lack of key representation from a particular organisation (e.g. WA Health) can result in particular risk not being able to be assessed or being assessed poorly.

Stakeholders should be identified by the risk assessment team before the workshop. They can be categorised into one of three groups:

(1) Those who may be affected by the impacts from an emergency event

(2) Those who may contribute specialist knowledge to the process

(3) Those who have jurisdictional authority for the specific hazards and/or elements at risk.

Stakeholders that you may consider inviting to the risk assessment workshop could include:

• Child Protection and Family Support

• Department of Aboriginal Affairs

• Department of Agriculture and Food WA

• Department of Education

• Department of Fire and Emergency Services

• Department of Health (WA Country Health Services)

• Department of Parks and Wildlife

• LEMC members

• Local Government Business Services Manager (or equivalent)

• Local Government CEO or Deputy Manager

• Local Government Environmental Manager (or equivalent)

• Local Government Works Department

• Local Recovery Coordinator

• Main Roads WA

• Representation from public utilities (e.g. Horizon, Western Power, Atco Gas, Alinta)

• Representation for vulnerable persons (e.g. aged-care, disability services)

• State Emergency Services

• Water Corporation

• WA Police

Other representatives you may consider, depending on the services located within the scope of your risk assessment include:

• Airports

• Corrective institutions

• Universities or colleges

• Industry (e.g. mining, oil, gas and tourism)

• Specific events (e.g. sporting events, music festivals)

• Remote Communities

Ch 5

Esta

blish

the

scop

e

Ch 5


BEFOREthe workshop

Establish the scope

Ch 5

Action 2. Develop shared understanding of objectives, scope and risk criteriaAn initial meeting with the identified key stakeholder group (~ 6 to 8 people, or the LEMC) should develop a shared understanding of the objectives, scope and risk criteria of the ERM process prior to the workshop.

ObjectiveA critical objective of the ERM process would be to fulfil the legislative requirements in State EM Policy – Part 3 Prevention. Other objectives may be for the local government to be aware of its risk profile and having this documented. The most important objective should be to improve community safety and wellbeing.

ScopeThe scope of the risk assessment explains what will be included and excluded from the study, and the reason for this decision. The scope of the risk assessment should address the defined objectives and should consider internal and external parameters.

The internal parameters (referring to the LEMC or local government organisational components) could include:

• Governance and organisational structures

• Policies and objectives

• Capability of resources and knowledge

• Project timeline

• Information systems

• Relationships with internal stakeholders

• Standards, guidelines and models used by the organisation

• Existing contractual relationships, where applicable

The external parameters (referring to the local government area or area being assessed) could include:

• Cultural environment

• Social environment

• Political environment

• Legal and regulatory environment

• Jurisdictional boundaries

• Geographic data of the area

• Technological environment (e.g. availability of telecommunication systems)

• Economic environment

• Any key trends in the environment

CriteriaRisk criteria assist in making judgements about which risks need to be treated. The criteria should reflect community viewpoints and common values, and consider social and environmental factors. Risk criteria should be agreed upon at this point so that they are not influenced by outcomes from later phases.

The chosen risk criteria in WA are based on the NERAG 2015 which have been adapted to the WA context. More information about risk criteria is provided in Chapter 7.

Ch 5

Establish the scope


BEFOREthe workshop

Esta

blish

the

scop

e

!

Remember: Continuous communication is vital in producing a robust Project Plan.

Objectives 1. To fulfil legislative requirements as in State EM Policy – Part 3 Prevention. 2. Increased awareness of risk in the local government area.3. Improve community safety and wellbeing.

Responsibilities The Shire of XXXX has responsibilities to undertake this assessment as outlined in State EM Policy – Part 3 Prevention.

Scope a The risk assessment is limited to relevant hazards in the LGA, not all of Western Australia’s 27 prescribed hazards. The scope may be constrained by factors such as resources, budget, boundaries of local government authority, data limitations.

Supporting evidence and expertise

Studies/modelling used as supporting evidence for the risk assessment, if available.

Communication and consultation

The risk analysis phase will be undertaken in a workshop setting. Other communication and consultation will be undertaken in accordance with the Communication and Consultation plan.

Stakeholders Stakeholders are invited to participate in the risk assessment based on their responsibilities in governance or emergency management, and/or their involvement in the scenarios, including:

• HMA or Emergency Management Agency (EMA)• hazard expertise• functional services• other agencies with interest or expertise of relevance to the scenario• other stakeholders as outlined in Communication and Consultation Plan

Risk Criteria People: Population: ~XXXX peopleEconomy: Gross area product of $XXXX billionPublic Administration: Core functions include maintenance of infrastructure (e.g. water, sewerage), maintenance of emergency services.Social Setting: Culturally important events include street festivalsEnvironment: Important native and non-native flora and fauna

Table 3: Example of Project Plan.3

Action 3. Develop a Project PlanA Project Plan is helpful to assist the risk assessment team in structuring their work and ensuring that all necessary points are covered. This plan should be submitted to stakeholders for comment, followed by executive managers for approval. An example of a Project Plan is provided in Table 3 and blank Project Plan is provided in Appendix C.

Project Plan requirements

Note:a. More information about the scope can be found in Action 2, Chapter 5.

Ch 5

3 Source: Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department, accessed under Creative Commons BY licence.


BEFOREthe workshop

Identify current and/or prospective community issues that may affect the ERM Process.

Develop a Project Plan that includes the scope of the risk assessment.

5.4. Establish the scope checklistYou should have completed the following ‘Establish the scope’ tasks before moving on:

Ch 5

Establish the scope


BEFOREthe workshop

Risk

iden

tifica

tion

Chapter 6. Risk identification The aim of risk identification is to generate a comprehensive list of risks based on the sources of risk (hazard) and their potential consequences3 (Figure 8). Risk occurs where the hazard (e.g. bushfire, cyclone) impacts vulnerable elements of the community, creating an emergency event.

In this chapter you will identify risk by:

• Describing in detail, the hazards that could affect your area of assessment

• Identifying elements of the community vulnerable to those hazards

It is important to consider both existing and new risks that may come as your community (or LGA) grows.

Figure 8: ERM process – Risk Identification.2

6.1 Risk RegisterThe Risk Register is the record of all risks your community may face and is the output of the risk assessment process. The register contains all information regarding risk identification and analysis and describes which risks require the most critical attention.

In this guide, the Risk Register is provided in two formats depending on which format you prefer to use:

• A printable Risk Register template – included in Table 24 (Appendix D) and on the SEMC website

• An Excel spreadsheet version – referred to as the WA Risk Register Tool (WARR Tool) available on the SEMC website.

Only one Risk Register is required for your risk assessment. It is highly recommended that you use the Excel version to save time on numerous manual calculations.

Ch 6


Workshop

Establish the scope

RISK IDENTIFICATION

Risk analysis

Risk evaluation

Risk treatment

Com

mun

icati

on a

nd c

onsu

ltatio

nM

onitor and review


BEFOREthe workshop

6.2. Objective To develop a systematic and comprehensive table of existing and potential risks.

6.3. Output(1) A comprehensive list of all potential risks to the community including key details of the

risk(s).

(2) Credible worst case hazard scenario for relevant hazard(s).

(3) Risk statements concerning each relevant hazard.

(4) A partially filled risk register with the risk sources, hazards, impact areas, risk statements and controls entered.

The identification of risks must be ongoing, comprehensive and systematic to ensure all risks are considered. In addition, it should involve open inclusion of stakeholders and a pool of expertise in order to share a holistic understanding of risk(s). !

6.4. Actions

1 Identify and describe the hazard(s) and its source(s)

2 Identify and analyse elements that are vulnerable to impacts from hazard(s)

4 Write risk statements for each hazard and impact area

5 Identify existing controls

3 Develop hazard scenario(s)

At the completion of the risk assessment process, the Risk Register should include the following:

• Risk statements linking the risk source, hazard, impact area and consequences (Chapter 6)

• Description of existing controls (Chapter 6)

• Consequence level (Chapter 7)

• Likelihood level (Chapter 7)

• Risk level (Chapter 7)

• Confidence level (Chapter 7)

• Risk priority (Chapter 8)

• Any relevant comments

A complete example of a Risk Register is shown in Table 23 (Appendix D) and partial examples are included throughout this guide.

Ch 6

Risk identification


BEFOREthe workshop

Risk

iden

tifica

tion

Action 1. Identify and describe the hazard(s) and its sourceDescribe all hazards that could affect the community using all available sources of information. Use the list of 27 prescribed hazards (Table 4) that the state faces as a guide to help you identify which of these hazards may affect your community. This approach should be systematic and comprehensive, so as to not exclude any relevant hazards. There will be other risks that your community (or LGA) face outside of these 27 hazards (e.g. drug trafficking), but this risk assessment focuses on emergency events that would involve a significant coordinated multi-agency responses.

Potential sources of information include:

• Historical records (including media, past insurance claims, etc.)

• Physical inspection of hazardous sites

• Research

• Interviews

• Brainstorming

• Local experience

• Existing statistics

• Surveys and questionnaires

• Common knowledge (local oral history)

• Scientific analysis, if available

• Previous risk assessments, if available

Carefully consider the source of the hazard, as there may be multiple sources for one hazard or multiple hazards from one source. For example, severe storms may result in heavy rainfall, flash flooding and/or land slide(s).

This list of hazards and their source(s) will be used in Action 3 to develop relevant hazard scenario(s).

Risk

Iden

tifica

tion

Ch 6Ch 6

Table 4. The 27 prescribed hazards the state is exposed to, as identified in the Emergency Act 2005 and Emergency Regulations 2006:

HAZARDS

• Collapse (cliff/landform and building) • Cyclone• Earthquake • Fire (Bushfire and Structural)• Flood • Heatwave• Storm • Tsunami• Air Crash • Animal and Plant Biosecurity• Electricity Supply Disruption • Gas Supply Disruption• HAZMAT: Biological • HAZMAT: Chemical, Radiological• Human Epidemic • Land Search• Liquid Fuel Supply Disruption • Marine Oil Pollution• Marine Search • Marine Transport Emergency• Radiation: Nuclear Powered Warships • Rail Crash: Brookfield Rail Network• Rail Crash: PTA Network • Road Crash• Space Debris Re-entry • Terrorism


BEFOREthe workshop

Risk

Iden

tifica

tion

Action 2. Identify and analyse exposure to the hazardFor all identified hazards, consider who or what is exposed to them. The community environment can be divided into five key impact areas (Figure 9; Appendix E). When considering what could be impacted, think of the following aspects:

• Community elements which may be damaged by a hazard (e.g. coastal housing)

• Community characteristics which influence hazard impacts (e.g. low socio-economic demographic)

• How different community elements will be exposed to different hazards

The aim of this action is to determine critical elements that, if damaged, would have a significant impact on the community. For example, the loss of the hospital or major power station would significantly impact the community not just individuals. These critical vulnerable elements and how they may be impacted by the hazard will inform what the worst case scenario may be for the community.

Figure 9: Five key impact areas of the community environment.

Ch 6

Social Setting:Impacts on the whole community, its daily

functioning and social aspects such as culture

and community resilience

People:Impacts

on the physical health of individuals

Economy:Impacts to the economy, the governing bodies and

industry sectors

Environment:Impacts on the ecosystem

of the area, including flora and fauna

Public Administration:Impacts of the emergency on the governing body’s

ability to govern

Ch 6

Risk identification


BEFOREthe workshop

Action 3. Hazard scenario development

Using the hazard and vulnerable elements information, a credible worst case scenario should be developed for each identified hazard (Action 1). These scenarios will be used to assess the consequences and risks during the workshop (Chapter 7). While there are in fact a multitude of events that could occur, a scenario is used to assess the risks because it keeps everyone focused on the same event. A credible worst case scenario has been chosen as the scenario to use because if planning and risk reduction activities are done for the largest event, it is more than likely they will address smaller events, even if those are more frequent.

Scenarios should be developed in conjunction with experts and stakeholders in the area that have an understanding of the hazard(s). Individuals representing the HMA, critical infrastructure providers, health services and local government can be helpful. Scenarios can be created using data from historical events, from previous experiences and/or simulated events based on modelling. This will produce the most credible scenario. A separate hazard scenario planning workshop can be held to discuss the scenario, its development and who is responsible for each aspect of the scenario.

Key aspects of the scenario:

• Must be a credible worst case scenario for the hazard in the area of interest (consider historical events and previous experience)

• Requires a multi-agency response• Scenario consequences should address the consequence table categories (Table 7)• Must have a credible Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP)• All required aspects in Table 5

In addition to the key aspects, there are a few helpful things to have in mind. A good starting point in developing the scenario is to imagine a situation that makes people scared. Often there have been close calls in the past, or statements such as “If it had gone that way, it would have been all over”. Another useful tip is to use the consequence table (Table 7) tailored to your population and gross area product and aim to produce an event that may have catastrophic impacts across a few (or all) of the five impact areas. These are the types of scenarios you want to consider.

The district level hazard scenarios will be made available on The Hub on the SEMC website or through your regional SEMC representative which can be modified to suit your area of interest.

The outputs from this action should be:

• A detailed description of the hazard scenario• Creation of a scenario presentation to be given to the workshop participants (Chapter 7).

If possible, maps showing the hazard extent and intensity should be presented to aid workshop participants’ understanding of the scenario.

Risk Identification

Ch 6

Risk

iden

tifica

tion

Ch 6


BEFOREthe workshop

Ch 6

Required aspects Hazard scenario example 1 Hazard scenario example 2Hazard Fire Rail crashAEP 0.02 (1 in 50 year) 0.039 (1 in 25 years)Source Dry lightening Derailment and crash into highway

bridgeMagnitude -* One passenger trainExtent Whole area of interest (see

scenario map)200 metres of the railway line and the highway bridge

Hazard duration 3-4 days minimum burn time >24 hoursLocation(s) Whole area of interest (see

scenario map)Crash at crossing of railway line and highway (road above rail)

Time of day/year Mid-late December Sunday evening in JuneTimeline of events Midday ignition. Strong winds in

afternoon moving fire towards town.

Passenger train derails in the evening with emergency response overnight and into the morning. Train removed after 24-48 hours

Characteristics e.g. fuel loading, weather conditions, type of vehicles involved, aftershock sequence, etc.

Fire danger extreme to catastrophicNE winds move to NW up to 40km/hSummer conditions with little rain

Train derails under highway bridge and hits bridge pylons

Anticipated high level impactsDeath/injuries Potential for isolated cases of

death and injuries from defending, evacuations and smoke inhalation

Potential for a number of injuries and deaths

Infrastructure affected Potential for main highways and railways to be closed and damage to some essential industries

Potential for railway and highway closure

Additional comments/descriptionAreas inaccessible increasing burn timeLarge forested areas are burntNo reticulated waterSignificant outside resources required

Rail service popular with elderlyIssues with isolation – emergency services would take time to get thereKnock-on effects with mine sites and exporting due to rail and road closures/damage

Table 5: Aspects required for hazard scenario development with two fictional scenarios as examples. A blank template is included in Appendix F.

*Note: not all aspects can be filled out for each hazard.

Determining the event/scenario probabilityA key aspect of developing a scenario and assessing risk is determining the probability of the scenario occurring. For example, bushfires occur every year, but how often does one of this scale occur?

In order to be able to compare the risks of different hazards properly, the probability of the event(s) needs to be known. For instance, an earthquake may be very damaging but unlikely to occur very often (1 in 200 years). On the other hand, a serious bushfire may occur more often (1 in 50 years). To properly compare the risks (which is influenced by the probability of the event), the probability of each scenario needs to be determined.

Ch 6

Risk identification


BEFOREthe workshop

AEP = 1 – 2.718282 –1

ARI( )

Figure 10: Example of how to calculate AEP using a calculator.

The equation can be entered into a calculator as follows:

AEP =1-2.718282^(-1/ARI)

Where ^ is ‘to the power of’ and is written on calculator buttons as either xy or yx

As an example, consider a flood which has an ARI of 10 (it occurs on average once per 10 years). This would be entered as:

AEP =1-2.718282^(-1/10)

Giving an AEP of 0.095

If you are unsure how to enter the equation into a calculator, an example is provided in Figure 10 .

This guide uses the Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) – that is the probability of the scenario occurring in a given year. The AEP can be difficult to determine and is typically determined by comparison to other similar hazard occurrences, scientific research or by expert judgment based on scientific knowledge.

Another way to look at scenario probability is the Average Recurrence Interval (ARI). The ARI is a statistical estimate of the average period of time (usually in years) between the occurrence of scenarios of a given size. It is more likely that people can estimate the probability in terms of years; for example, a flood occurs every 40 to 50 years. Thankfully, there is a way to relate the ARI and AEP, so if the probability in years is known, the AEP value can be determined.

To assist, a tool has been developed and can be found in the WARR Tool, on the ‘Event tab’.

If you are unable to use the WARR Tool, then the AEP can be calculated manually using the equation and steps below.

Risk

Iden

tifica

tion

Ch 6

If looking at more than one scenario (e.g. flood and bushfire), you will need an AEP for each. Also remember to consider how often a scenario of that magnitude happens (e.g. not just any bushfire or flood). !

Risk

iden

tifica

tion

Ch 6


BEFOREthe workshop

Action 4. Write risk statements

Having identified the hazards (Action 1), vulnerable elements (Action 2) and developed a scenario (Action 3), these components are combined to identify the risks in your community. For each hazard and impact area, record any and all possible consequences for that area, for the given scenario. This can be done by writing risk statements.

Risk statements are single sentences that detail the relationship between the source(s) of risk, the impacted area(s) and the consequences for the given scenario. Risk statements should be written for each hazard and impact category. There should be as many statements as necessary to cover all of the possible consequences. However, through workshop experience at the district level, it is recommended that up to 50 statements and no more than 50 statements per hazard scenario is effective. Figure 11 shows some of the different aspects in the five impact areas that might be impacted.

Risk

Iden

tifica

tion

Ch 6

• Young children

• Elderly people

• Individuals with disabilities

• Members of the public requiring assistance

• Hospitals

• Health Centres

• Emergency Services

• Schools

• Aged care facilities

• Local businesses

• Economic hubs

• Primary industries

• Shopping centres

• Tourism

• Flora• Fauna• Conservation areas• Environmentally sensitive areas

• Bodies of water

• Government services

People

Environment Public Administration

EconomySocial Setting

Figure 11: Examples of areas of the community that may be vulnerable to the impacts from hazard(s)

For example, a LG has identified two hazards as being relevant to their assessment. Figure 12 shows how an assessment team can decide what statements to write. There is a risk statement database available on the SEMC website which gives generic risk statements that can be modified to suit the impacted area.

When writing risk statements, each statement should outline:

• The source of risk

• The emergency event that emerges from the source of risk

• The impact area

• Consequences which may result from the source of risk interacting with the impact area

Each of the statements should be written in a way that they can be assessed by the risk criteria in the consequence table (Table 7). It would be good to familiarise yourself with the consequence criteria before writing the statements.

Ch 6

Risk identification


BEFOREthe workshop

BUSHFIRE

People

Social setting

Economy

Environment

Public administration

death

injury

etc

schools closed

no access to shops

etc

damaged home contents

loss of local business

loss of livestock

etc

damage to local environment

etc

will require recovery effort

increased demand on emergency services

etc

STORM

People

Social setting

Economy

Environment

Public administration

injury

etc

damage to heritage buildings

loss of community morale

etc

prevent commercial businesses from operating

interupt major event

etc

impact health of wildlife

impact national parks

etc

increased demand on emergency services

impact service providers

impact public transport

etc

Figure 12: Example of risk statement formulation for two example hazard scenarios.


BEFOREthe workshop

!Remember: A risk results only when there is interaction between a hazard and a vulnerable element of the community (one of the five key impact areas identified in Figure 9). For example, a flood is a hazard but does not present a risk unless it interacts with people, transport routes, sensitive areas, etc.

Figure 13: Fictional examples of risk statements with fundamental components that contribute to the risk statement highlighted for clarity.

!Ensure that risk statements can be answered with criteria in consequence tables.

When writing a risk statement, the general structure to follow is:

‘A [source of risk] resulting in a [emergency event] will impact [area] resulting in [consequences].’

Examples of risk statements are presented below (Figure 13), with more examples provided in Appendix F. A generic risk statement database is available on the SEMC website which provides risk statements that can be tailored to your specific needs.All risk statements should be entered into the risk register. An example is shown in Table 6.

A significant rain event resulting in flooding in <location> will impact

Source of risk Emergency Event

emergency services’ response buildings & facilities, impacting their ability to maintain core services.

Consequences

Impact area

A bushfire in <location> will impact private buildings and contents, resulting in financial losses.

Emergency Event Consequences

A category 3 cyclone making landfall at <location> will impact the

Emergency Event

health of people and cause death(s).

ConsequencesImpact area

Impact area

Ch 6

Risk identification

Public Administration

Economy

People


BEFOREthe workshop

Risk Statement Risk source

Hazard Impact Area

Existing controls

A significant rainfall event in <location> causing flooding will impact the health of persons and cause death(s).

Severe rainfall

Flood People • Early warning system • Flood forecasting• Flood information brochures pre-season• Flood awareness kits• SES rescue boats available but limited • Evacuation plan including shelters

A significant rainfall event in <location> causing flooding will impact crops and consequently harvest, resulting in financial losses.

Flood Economy • Early warning system• Flood forecasting• Drainage system maintenance• Farm dams • Some business continuity plans in place• Land use zoning

A significant rainfall event in <location> causing flooding will result in evacuation to safe accommodation away from people’s homes, resulting in dispersal of the community.

Flood Social setting

• Early warning system• Flood awareness kits• Radio announcements• Evacuation plan including shelters• SES rescue boats available but limited • Evacuation signs

Table 6: Example of a Risk Register.

Action 5. Identify controlsThe final step to consider is what currently exists to prevent the impacts of such events. These measures are called controls. Controls can include approaches that:

• Avoid the risk (e.g. land use planning to move vulnerable elements away from risks)

• Removal of the risk source (e.g. stabilise steep cliffs to remove landslide risk sources)

• Modify the consequence (e.g. strengthen buildings to minimise hazard impacts)

• Modify the likelihood of the risk (e.g. road safety improvements to minimise road crash likelihood)

• Retain the risk by informed decision (e.g. public education about the risks, insurance)

Existing controls should be added to your risk register (see Table 6). These controls are to be considered during the risk assessment workshop.

Risk

iden

tifica

tion

Ch 6


BEFOREthe workshop

Create a plan and a realistic schedule for the risk assessment workshop

Create a list of necessary resources required to run the workshop (consider the room, projector, workshop materials - more information about resources in Appendix B).

Inform all stakeholders involved of the workshop agenda.

Identify and describe all hazards and their sources considered in the risk assessment.

Identify elements that are vulnerable to hazard(s).

Develop a credible worst case scenario which can be used for risk analysis during the workshop.

Write risk statements for each hazard and impact area.

Identify existing controls which may modify risk.

Update Risk Register or WARR Tool with hazard(s), risk statements, impact areas and the existing controls.

6.5. Risk identification checklist

You should have completed the following ‘Risk identification’ tasks before moving on:

Ch 6

Risk identification


Ch 6

DURINGthe workshop


DURINGthe workshop

Chapter 7. Risk analysisRisk analysis is the “systematic process to understand the nature of and to deduce the level of risk.” 3

In Chapter 6, a series of risk statements were created. This chapter explains the workshop process used to analyse these statements to determine the risk level of each statement (Figure 14). The level of a risk is determined by identifying its likelihood of occurrence and consequence(s). The consequence (Table 7) and likelihood (Table 8) criteria in the NERAG3 have been adapted to the Western Australia context. The chosen consequence and likelihood levels are then used to assign an overall risk level for each risk statement using the risk matrix (Table 9).

Risk analysis is best undertaken in a workshop setting with all relevant stakeholders present (see Chapter 3). Information from the actions in this chapter will populate your risk register created in Chapter 6.

Figure 14: ERM process – Risk analysis.2

7.1. ObjectiveTo determine the consequences and likelihood of risks and assign risk levels.

7.2. Output(1) Recorded consequence and likelihood of risk statements

(2) Assigned risk and confidence levels

(3) Updated risk register

Ch 7

Risk analysis


Workshop

Establish the scope

Risk identification

RISK ANALYSIS

Risk evaluation

Risk treatment

Com

mun

icati

on a

nd c

onsu

ltatio

nM

onitor and review


DURINGthe workshop

7.3. Actions

1 Assign a consequence level

2 Assign a likelihood level

3 Assign a risk level

4 Determine confidence level

Action 1: Assign a consequence levelThe NERAG consequence table has been tailored to the Western Australia context (Table 7). This table shows how the impacts of an emergency event can be categorised from ‘insignificant’ to ‘catastrophic’ according to the five key impact areas. See Appendix D for environment impact definitions.

When assigning a consequence level to a risk statement, it is important that the most serious consequence is chosen. For example, while there might only be a 20% chance of a major consequence for a risk statement and a 80% change of a moderate consequence, the higher consequence needs to be chosen. So when doing the risk assessment begin on the right of the consequence table (catastrophic level) and work left until you find the appropriate consequence level, i.e. start with the highest consequence and work towards the lowest consequence.

You will note in the consequence table there can be more than one subpoint in a category. It only needs to meet one of these subpoints to fit into that consequence, not all. For example, for a risk statement to have a catastrophic economic impact, it may be that >4% of the gross area product is lost, but there is no failure of a significant industry. In this case, the risk statement would still be assigned a catastrophic consequence level.

Remember: It is enough to meet only one of the criteria points of the consequence level, not all criteria in each box needs to be met. !

When deciding the consequence it is important to consider how the existing controls may alter the impacts. This is typically done informally during discussions in the workshop. It is possible to rate the level of control using Table 20 and Table 21 in Appendix D, although this is not required. You may find the rating of controls more useful when evaluating and treating the risks (Chapters 8 and 9) in order to see if existing controls could be strengthened.

Risk

ana

lysis

Ch 7


DURINGthe workshop

This guide uses scalable consequence descriptions for the people and economy impact areas to ensure the level of risk of an event can be assessed at the appropriate scale. For example, a reduction of $2 billion in economic activity from an emergency event could be considered:

• a ‘catastrophic’ consequence for a local area

• a ‘major’ consequence for a district

• a ‘moderate’ consequence for the state

In some cases, where there are small populations or economic value, different consequence categories may have the same criteria. For example, for a population of 15,000, the scaled people criteria for the ‘minor’, ‘moderate’ and ‘major’ consequence categories would all be ‘at least 1 death’ because values are rounded up to the nearest whole number. In such cases, the highest consequence level should be applied, i.e. major in this example.

Ch 7

Risk analysis


DURINGthe workshop

Table 7: Consequence table used to assign levels of consequence.3 See Table 22 (Appendix D) for definitions of environment impact terms.

Risk

ana

lysis

Ch 7Consequence table

Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

People

MortalityNot Applicable Deaths greater than 1 in

10,000,000 people for the population of interest

Deaths greater than 1 in 1,000,000 people for the population of interest

Deaths greater than 1 in 100,000 people for the population of interest

Deaths greater than 1 in 10,000 people for the population of interest

Injuries/IllnessLess than 1 in 1,000,000 people of the population serious injured or any minor injuries

Greater than 1 in 10,000,000 people of the population critically injured with long-term or permanent incapacitation or 1 in 1,000,000 people of the population seriously injured

Greater than 1 in 1,000,000 people of the population critically injured with long-term or permanent incapacitation or 1 in 100,000 people of the population seriously injured

Greater than 1 in 100,000 people of the population critically injured with long-term or permanent incapacitation or 1 in 10,000 people of the population seriously injured

Greater than 1 in 10,000 people of the population critically injured with long-term or permanent incapacitation

EconomyLoss in economic activity and/or asset value

Decline of economic activity and/or loss of asset value <0.004% of gross area product

Decline of economic activity and/or loss of asset value >0.004% of gross area product



Decline of economic activity and/or loss of asset value >4% of gross area product

Impact on important industry

Inconsequential business sector disruption

Significant industry or business sector is impacted by the emergency event, resulting in short-term (i.e. less than one year) profit reductions

Significant industry or business sector is significantly impacted by the emergency event, resulting in medium-term (i.e. more than one year) profit reductions

Significant structural adjustment required by a significant industry to respond and recover from emergency event

Failure of a significant industry or sector

EnvironmentLoss of species and/or landscapes

No damage to ecosystems at any level

Minor damage to ecosystems and species recognised at the local or regional level

• Minor damage to ecosystems and species recognised at the state level • Significant loss or impairment of an ecosystem or species recognised at the local or regional level

• Minor damage to ecosystems or species recognised at the national level • Significant loss or impairment of an ecosystem or species recognised at the state level • Severe damage to or loss of an ecosystem or species recognised at the local or regional level

• Permanent destruction of an ecosystem or species recognised at the local, regional, state or national level • Severe damage to or loss of an ecosystem or species recognised at the national or state level • Significant loss or impairment of an ecosystem or species recognised at the national level

Loss of environmental value

Inconsequential damage to environmental values of interest

Minor damage to environmental values of interest

Significant damage to environmental values of interest

Severe damage to environmental values of interest

Permanent destruction of environmental values of interest

Public AdministrationGovernance Functions

Governing bodies’ delivery of core functions is unaffected or within normal parameters

Governing bodies encounter limited reduction in delivery of core functions

• Governing bodies encounter significant reduction in the delivery of core functions • Governing bodies are required to divert some available resources to deliver core functions or seek external assistance to deliver some of their core functions

• Governing bodies encounter severe reduction in the delivery of core functions • Governing bodies are required to divert a significant amount of available resources to deliver core functions or seek external assistance to deliver the majority of their core functions

Governing bodies are unable to deliver their core functions

Social SettingCommunity wellbeing

• Community social fabric is disrupted

• Existing resources sufficient to return the community to normal function

• No permanent dispersal

• Community social fabric is damaged

• Some external resources required to return the community to normal function


• Community social fabric is broken

• Significant external resources required to return the community to normal function


• Community social fabric is significantly broken

• Extraordinary external resources required to return the community to functioning effectively

• Significant permanent dispersal

• Community social fabric is irreparably broken

• Community ceases to function effectively, breaks down

• Community disperses in its entirety

Community services

Inconsequential/short term impacts

Isolated/temporary reductions

Ongoing reductions Reduced quality of life Community unable to support itself

Culturally important objects

Minor damage to objects of cultural significance

Damage to objects of identified cultural significance

Widespread damage to objects of identified cultural significance

Widespread damage or localised permanent loss of objects of identified cultural significance

Widespread damage or permanent loss of objects of identified cultural significance

Culturally important activities

Minor delay to a culturally important community event

Delay to or reduced scope of a culturally important community event

Delay to a major culturally important community event

Temporary cancellation or significant delay to a major culturally important community event

Permanent cancellation of a major culturally important community activity



DURINGthe workshop

Action 2. Assign a likelihood levelThe likelihood is defined as “the chance of something happening.” 3

There are two parts which contribute to the overall likelihood of a risk:

a) The probability of the emergency event (e.g. flood) occurring; and

b) The probability of the risk statement occurring (e.g. people being displaced).

These two parts can be determined separately.

Likelihood (%) = Probability of Event (AEP) x Probability of Risk Statement (%)

a) Determining the probability of an eventThe probability of the emergency event occurring is determined in Chapter 6 (Action 3). Table 8 shows how the NERAG assigns likelihood levels to the two modes of probability, AEP and ARI, that were discussed in Chapter 6.

Likelihood Level Annual exceedance probability in % (AEP)

Average recurrence interval (ARI) (indicative)

Frequency (indicative)

Almost Certain 63% per year or more

1 year or less Once or more per year

Likely 10 - <63% per year 1-10 years Once per 10 years

Unlikely 1 - <10% per year 11-100 years Once per 100 years

Rare 0.1 - <1% per year 101-1000 years Once per 1000 years

Very Rare 0.01 - <0.1% per year

1001-10,000 years Once per 10,000 years

Extremely rare <0.01% per year 10,001 years or more Once per 100,000 years

Table 8: Likelihood level. A logarithmic scale is used because the probability of emergency events can cover several orders of magnitude.3

If you are using the WARR Tool, you need to enter the AEP (in the correct column) so that the tool can use it in the automatic overall likelihood calculation. If you have more than one hazard in your spreadsheet, be sure that each hazard scenario has an individual AEP (e.g. 0.01 for bushfire, 0.034 for storm).

In WA, it was decided that determining the event probability would occur before the workshop so participants do not get confused thinking they need to know how often a hazard occurs. For example, if the risk statement says ‘a rainfall event across the region will cause flooding that will result in inundation of an aged-care facility’, the workshop participants do not need to determine how often the rainfall event occurs, but rather if it did, would the aged-care facility flood? Hence in the workshop, participants need only decide on the probability of the risk statement occurring.

Ch 7

Risk analysis


Remember: All risk statements for a particular hazard scenario should use the same AEP. !


DURINGthe workshop

Action 3. Assign a risk levelNow that consequence and likelihood levels have been assigned to the risk statement, the risk level can be determined using the risk matrix (Table 9). This calculation will be automatically done in the WARR Tool, but if done manually, see Figure 17.

Consider a flood with an Annual Exceedance Probably (AEP) of 0.095 (1 in 10 years). Assuming the probability of a risk statement occurring is 60%, then,

Likelihood %

Taking the value 5.7%, and comparing it to the AEP column in the likelihood table (Table 8), the overall risk statement likelihood can now be determined as ‘Unlikely’ as 5.7 fits between 1 and 10% per year.

= prob. of event × prob. of risk statement (%)

= 0.095 x 60

= 5.7%

Figure 16: Example using AEP and risk statement likelihood to calculate likelihood level.

Continuing the previous example (Figure 16), if you take the likelihood level of ‘Unlikely’, and the consequence level of ‘Moderate’, you can assign a risk level of ’Medium’.

Figure 15: Determining the probability of a risk statement occurring.

Certain 100%

50/50 50%

Extremely rare 0.0001%

X

b) Determine the probability of a risk statement occurringThis probability focuses on whether the particular risk statement would occur, given that the emergency event is happening. It is also the probability for the chosen consequence level (e.g. 20% probability for a major consequence; 80% for a moderate consequence). The probability required is a value between 0.0001-100% (Figure 15).

If you are using the WARR Tool, enter this percentage value into the tool. If you are using a printable Risk Register look at Figure 16 to determine how to calculate the final likelihood (%). It is highly recommended that you use the WARR Tool to avoid calculation mistakes.

Figure 17: Example of determining risk level.

Risk

ana

lysis

Ch 7


DURINGthe workshop

Action 4. Determine the confidence levelSince the results of this risk assessment will be used to make decisions about potential treatment options, the confidence of the assessment needs to be considered. The confidence level is determined during the workshop by the participants based on how confident they are about their assessments of the consequence and likelihood levels.

The confidence level table (Table 10) provides descriptions for 5 confidence levels (‘lowest’ to ‘highest’) based on the following criteria:

• Supporting evidence: the reliability, relevance and currency of the evidence used to support the risk assessment.

• Expertise: the use of appropriate expertise as part of the risk assessment process in assigning the likelihood and consequence levels.

• Participant agreement: the level of agreement between stakeholders.

A confidence level (‘lowest’ to ‘highest’) is required for each risk statement and should be entered into your risk register.

Consequence level

Likelihood Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

Almost Certain Medium Medium High Extreme Extreme

Likely Low Medium High Extreme Extreme

Unlikely Low Low Medium High Extreme

Rare Very low Low Medium High High

Very Rare Very low Very low Low Medium High

Extremely rare Very low Very low Low Medium High

Table 9: Risk matrix.3 Ch 7

Risk analysis



DURINGthe workshop

Table 10: Confidence level table. 3

Confidence level

Lowest Low Moderate High Highest

Confidence descriptor

Assessed consequence/likelihood could be one of four or more levels, with fundamental uncertainty

Assessed consequence/likelihood risk could be one of three or more levels, with major uncertainty

Assessed consequence/likelihood could be one of two levels, with significant uncertainty

Assessed consequence/likelihood has only one level, but with some uncertainty in the assessment

Assessed consequence/likelihood is easily assessed to one level, with almost no uncertainty

Supporting evidence

No historical events or quantitative modelled results to support the levels

Some comparable historical events through anecdotal information

or

Quantitative modelling and analysis with extensive extrapolation of data required to derive results of relevance to the event being assessed

Historical event of similar magnitude to that being assessed in a comparable community of interest

or

Quantitative modelling and analysis with reasonable extrapolation of data required to derive results of direct relevance to the event being assessed

Recent historical event of similar magnitude to that being assessed in a directly comparable community of interest

or

Quantitative modelling and analysis uses sufficient quality and length of data to derive results of direct relevance to the event being assessed

Recent historical event of similar magnitude to that being assessed in the community of interest

or

Quantitative modelling and analysis of highest quality and length of data relating directly to the affected community, used to derive results of direct relevance to the scenario being assessed

Expertise No relevant technical expertise is available to the team for analysis

Risk assessment team contains technical expertise related to the field being assessed

and

Technical expertise is taken into account by the risk assessment team

Risk assessment team contains relevant technical expertise in the field being assessed, and experience in data and/or modelling of relevance to the event being assessed

and

Technical expertise is used by the risk assessment team

Risk assessment team contains relevant technical expertise in the field being assessed, and experience with data and/or modelling relating to the event being assessed

and

Technical expertise is highly influential in the decisions of the risk assessment team

Risk assessment team contains relevant and demonstrated technical expertise in the field being assessed, and experience in data and/or modelling of direct relevance to the scenario being assessed and


Participant agreement

Fundamental disagreement on level of consequence, with little prospect of agreement

Disagreements on fundamental issues relating to the assessment of consequence, which would lead to a range of rating levels

Disagreement on significant issues, which would lead to different levels of consequence depending on which argument was followed

Disagreement on only minor aspects, which have little effect on the assessment of level of consequence

Agreement among participants on the assessment of levels of consequence

Risk

ana

lysis

Ch 7



DURINGthe workshop

Confidence level

Lowest Low Moderate High Highest

Confidence descriptor

Assessed consequence/likelihood could be one of four or more levels, with fundamental uncertainty

Assessed consequence/likelihood risk could be one of three or more levels, with major uncertainty

Assessed consequence/likelihood could be one of two levels, with significant uncertainty

Assessed consequence/likelihood has only one level, but with some uncertainty in the assessment

Assessed consequence/likelihood is easily assessed to one level, with almost no uncertainty

Supporting evidence

No historical events or quantitative modelled results to support the levels

Some comparable historical events through anecdotal information

or

Quantitative modelling and analysis with extensive extrapolation of data required to derive results of relevance to the event being assessed

Historical event of similar magnitude to that being assessed in a comparable community of interest

or

Quantitative modelling and analysis with reasonable extrapolation of data required to derive results of direct relevance to the event being assessed

Recent historical event of similar magnitude to that being assessed in a directly comparable community of interest

or

Quantitative modelling and analysis uses sufficient quality and length of data to derive results of direct relevance to the event being assessed

Recent historical event of similar magnitude to that being assessed in the community of interest

or

Quantitative modelling and analysis of highest quality and length of data relating directly to the affected community, used to derive results of direct relevance to the scenario being assessed

Expertise No relevant technical expertise is available to the team for analysis

Risk assessment team contains technical expertise related to the field being assessed

and

Technical expertise is taken into account by the risk assessment team

Risk assessment team contains relevant technical expertise in the field being assessed, and experience in data and/or modelling of relevance to the event being assessed

and

Technical expertise is used by the risk assessment team

Risk assessment team contains relevant technical expertise in the field being assessed, and experience with data and/or modelling relating to the event being assessed

and


Risk assessment team contains relevant and demonstrated technical expertise in the field being assessed, and experience in data and/or modelling of direct relevance to the scenario being assessed and


Participant agreement

Fundamental disagreement on level of consequence, with little prospect of agreement

Disagreements on fundamental issues relating to the assessment of consequence, which would lead to a range of rating levels

Disagreement on significant issues, which would lead to different levels of consequence depending on which argument was followed

Disagreement on only minor aspects, which have little effect on the assessment of level of consequence

Agreement among participants on the assessment of levels of consequence

Risk statement Consequence Level

Likelihood Level

Confidence Level

Risk Level

A significant rainfall event in <location> causing flooding will impact the health of persons and cause death(s).

Moderate Likely Moderate High

A significant rainfall event in <location> causing flooding will impact crops and consequently harvest, resulting in financial losses.

Major Unlikely Moderate High

A significant rainfall event in <location> causing flooding will result in evacuation to safe accommodation away from people’s homes, resulting in dispersal of the community.

Major Likely Moderate Extreme

7.4. Update risk register with risk analysis informationAt the end of the risk analysis phase, the following information needs to be updated in your Risk Register (Table 11) or WARR Tool:

• Consequence level

• Probability of risk statement occurring (WARR Tool only)

• Likelihood level (calculated automatically in the WARR Tool)

• Confidence level

• Risk level (calculated automatically in the WARR Tool)

For ease, within the workshop, one risk assessment team member may want to facilitate discussion while another team member enters the information into the WARR Tool as the group works through the risk statements.

Table 11: Updated Risk Register example (only showing the risk analysis part of the risk register).

Assigned a consequence level to each risk statement.

Assigned a likelihood level to each risk statement.

Determined the risk level of each risk statement.

Determined the confidence level of your assessment for each risk statement.

Updated Risk Register or WARR Tool.

7.5. Risk analysis checklistYou should have completed the following ‘Risk Analysis’ tasks before moving on:

Ch 7

Risk analysis


Ch 8

AFTERthe workshop


AFTERthe workshop

Chapter 8. Risk evaluation

Risk evaluation is the process of determining whether the risk and/or its magnitude is acceptable or tolerable.3 The risk evaluation phase (Figure 18) helps to determine which risks may require further detailed assessment or treatment, and prioritises measures to reduce risk levels. It is likely that this phase will need to be undertaken with decision makers and technical experts. A further workshop or special LEMC meeting with appropriate executive managers present may be best. The information produced in this phase will need to be included in the Local Risk Assessment Summary Document (Appendix A).

8.1. ObjectiveDecide which risks may require further detailed assessment or treatment, and prioritise measures to reduce risk levels.

8.2. Output (1) List of risks which require treatment or further analysis.

(2) An updated risk register with the priority assigned to each risk

Figure 18: ERM process – Evaluate the risks. 2

8.3. Actions

2 Determine how to address prioritised risks.

3 Plan further analysis

4 Enter information into risk register

Risk

Eval

uatio

n

Ch 8

1 Assign a priority to each risk

Ch 8

Risk evaluation


Workshop

Establish the scope

Risk identification

Risk analysis

RISK EVALUATION

Risk treatment

Com

mun

icati

on a

nd c

onsu

ltatio

nM

onitor and review


AFTERthe workshop

Action 1. Assign a priority to each riskThe aim of the risk evaluation process is to assign a priority to each risk, based on the risk level and confidence level. The priority ranges from 1 (highest priority; needing the highest level of attention) to 5 (lowest priority; needing monitoring and maintenance of existing controls).

Prioritising risks guides practitioners to the order in which tasks need to be addressed.

Priority is determined by:

• The risk level (higher risk level leads to higher priority)

• The level of confidence (lower confidence leads to higher priority).

The response to a level of priority is to:

• Improve the confidence level of the risk (if possible) through research, further expert judgement or further investigations (Chapter 8, Action 3).

• Treat the risk by taking action to reduce the likelihood or consequence of the risk (Chapter 9).

• Monitor and review the risk as part of the ongoing risk management process (Chapter 10).

General descriptions for each priority are provided in Table 12.

Priority is determined automatically by the WARR Tool. If using the paper version of the Risk Register, then information about determining priority is provided in Appendix G.

Priority General descriptor: action pathway

1Highest priority for further investigation and/or treatment, and the highest authority relevant to context of risk assessment must be formally informed of risks. Each risk must be examined, and any actions of further investigation and/or risk treatment are to be documented, reported to and approved by that highest authority.

2High priority for further investigation and/or treatment, and the highest authority relevant to context of risk assessment should be formally informed of risks. Further investigations and treatment plans should be developed.

3Medium priority for further investigation and/or treatment. Actions regarding investigation and risk treatment should be delegated to appropriate level of organisation, and further investigations and treatment plans may be developed.

4Low priority for further investigation and/or treatment. Actions regarding investigation and risk treatment should be delegated to appropriate level of organisation, and further investigations and treatment plans may be developed.

5 Broadly acceptable risk. No action required beyond monitoring of risk level and priority during monitoring and review phase.

Table 12: Priority descriptions. 3

Risk

eva

luati

on

Ch 8



AFTERthe workshop

Action 2. Determine how to address the prioritised risks This stage considers whether any further action is to be undertaken for each risk. The following issues need to be considered for each risk:

• the urgency of the risk treatment (i.e. whether there is enough time to conduct further detailed analysis)

• whether the confidence level of the risk can realistically be increased• whether an improvement in confidence through more research or investigation would

provide a different priority

• whether a different priority would change the management response.

Further analysis should be considered if:

• A proposed treatment could have a negative impact on the hazard, which could increase and/or shift the risk to a new area.

• Further analysis will increase the risk assessment confidence.

At the end of this stage, each evaluated risk is assigned one of these categories:

• Category 1: Risk requiring treatment (with confidence to determine treatment objectives).

• Category 2: Risk requires further analysis (which may require a further workshop)

• Category 3: Risks (currently) requiring ongoing monitoring and maintenance of existing controls.

The decisions that determine risk categorisation are provided in Figure 19.

Ch 8

Risk evaluation

Figure 19: Decision point questions. 3

Risk Analysis

Question 1:

Does the risk need to be treated urgently?

Question 2:

Can the confidence

level reasonably be

improved?

Further analysis not required

Based on risk priority, determine if risk is Category 1 or 3

Further analysis required (Category 2)

Yes

No YesQuestion 3:

If confidence were improved, would it affect

priority?

YesQuestion 4:

If confidence were improved, would a different decision

be made regarding treatment and management?

Yes

Question 1.1:

Will the treatment alter the behaviour of the hazard and could

this have adverse consequences outside the

treated area?

NoNoNo

Risk evaluation

Priority 1 - 4 Priority 5

Risk treatment(Category 1)

Monitor and review (Category 3)

No

Yes



AFTERthe workshop

Action 3. Plan further analysisDetailed analysis should be undertaken on risks where:

• the current analysis does not provide enough information for a reasonable decision to be made on the risk level

• the current analysis does not provide enough information on how effective the proposed treatment strategy will be

• the risk treatment has the potential to have adverse effects on hazard behaviour that need to be considered in decision making

These are the Category 2 risks of the risk evaluation process (Chapter 8, Action 2). Detailed analysis may involve investigating and researching a number of key risks, or beginning a new risk assessment with a more focused context. At this stage, semiquantitative or quantitative methods may be used (such as analysis of historical impacts or consequences of past emergency events). These methods are particularly likely to be useful if the treatments considered are either expensive or will have a widespread impact on the community.

Action 4. Enter information into risk registerAfter considering the further analysed risks, the risk assessment team can finalise the assessment of the relevant risk(s) by re-evaluating them. The re-evaluation of the risk(s) should include specialists in detailed assessment to compare the two sets of the results. Re-analysis and re-evaluation of risk(s) must be recorded in the risk register (see Table 13).

Table 13: Updated Risk Register example (only showing the risk priority part of the risk register).

Risk statement Risk priority

There is potential that a significant rain event across (location) causing widespread flooding could cause serious injury or death to one or more people

2

There is a risk that a flood will cause extensive relocation of residents and public from areas at risk for periods 24 hours or greater

1

There is a risk that a flood will cause substantial damage to infrastructure services that may result in shutdown and inconvenience to residents for periods 24 hours or more

2

Risk

eva

luati

on

Ch 8


AFTERthe workshop

Assign a priority to each risk

Determine whether evaluated risks require:

1) treatment

2) further analysis

3) require ongoing monitoring and maintenance of existing controls.

Plan further analysis if required.

Enter information into risk register.

8.4. Risk evaluation checklist

You should have completed the following ‘Risk evaluation’ tasks before moving on:

Ch 8

Risk evaluation


AFTERthe workshop

Risk treatment

Chapter 9. Risk treatmentThe risk evaluation process explained in Chapter 8 should have produced a list of risks that need to be treated. The risk treatment phase aims “to determine and implement the most appropriate action(s) in response to the identified need to treat risks.” 3

A risk treatment is the removal of a risk source or implementation or improvement in the controls to reduce the level of risk, and it is the last phase in the ERM process (Figure 20).

Figure 20: ERM process – Risk treatment. 2

9.1. ObjectiveDetermine and implement the most appropriate action(s) for risks requiring treatment.

9.2. Output(1) A risk treatment plan.

9.3. Action

1 Identify treatment options

2 Evaluate treatment options

3 Select appropriate treatments

4 Develop the treatment plan

5 Add treatment strategies to risk register

Ch 9

Risk

trea

tmen

t

Ch 9


Workshop

Establish the scope

Risk identification

Risk analysis

Risk evaluation

RISK TREATMENT

Com

mun

icati

on a

nd c

onsu

ltatio

nM

onitor and review


AFTERthe workshop

Ch 9 Action 1. Identify treatment optionsThe identification and subsequent design of treatment strategies requires a comprehensive understanding of the risk to ensure the causes of risks are treated, not just the symptoms.

In order to do this, complete the following:

• Consider the effectiveness of existing mitigation controls that are in place.

• Create a list of potential treatment options for each risk using the six approaches outlined in Table 14. These can be a single approach, or a combination of multiple.

Action 2. Evaluate potential treatment options

Evaluate the identified treatment options for each risk statement that requires treatment (Category 1 risks from Chapter 8, Action 2) based on:

• Initial cost-benefit analysis: Used to determine whether the benefits of the treatment strategy option outweigh the financial, societal or other costs resulting from implementation of the treatment option.

• Effectiveness of treatment options: Assesses how effective the treatment strategy option will be and whether this is enough to justify implementation.

• Further risk analysis, if applicable: Give consideration to any further analysis conducted during the risk evaluation stage.

• Acceptability of residual risks: Consider the residual risk that will remain after the treatment strategy option is implemented and make a decision on the acceptance of these risks.

Action 3. Select appropriate treatmentsThe selection of treatment options requires consultation with stakeholders. The following should be completed:

• Discuss results of the evaluation of treatments until a single treatment / mix of treatments emerges as the most sensible, efficient and cost effective way of dealing with the identified risk.

• List possible treatments in order of priority.

• Remember to include why you chose that treatment, its benefits, and the resources required to implement it.

Treatment approach Example

Avoiding the risk Prevent further development in hazard prone areasRemoving the risk source Remove hazardous waste from near built up areasChange the consequence of the risk Hazard specific building regulations Change the likelihood of the risk Build a sea wall to reduce the likelihood of coastal

flooding (only large storm surges will overtop the wall)Retain the risk by informed decision Community acknowledges the existence of the risk

but decides against treatment (e.g. retaining bushland near homes despite the risk of bushfire)

Sharing the risk Sharing the risk with another party such as insurance companies

Table 14: Examples of treatment approaches.

Ch 9

Risk treatment


AFTERthe workshop

Risk treatment

!Government agencies undertaking risk analysis must also be mindful of any state or national requirements which may impact treatments options such as regulation. There are nationally agreed approaches for evaluating regulatory courses of action.

Treatment Plan

Document the required frequency

of reviewDescribe in detail the

treatment action

Describe why the selected treatment

option was considered

Define the responsibilities of allindividuals and organisations involved

in treatment

Anticipated benefits from treatment actions

List all resources required for the effective implementation of the

treatment option

Detail how performance will be

measured

Provide a detailed timeline for

implementation, including all

deadlinesFigure 21: Components required for a treatment plan.

Action 4. Develop the treatment plan Develop a treatment plan that considers the components in Figure 21 for each treatment option identified.

Benefits

Review

Resources

Performance

TimeframeActions

Justification

Responsibilities

Ch 9

Risk

trea

tmen

t

Ch 9

Risk

trea

tmen

t

Ch 9


AFTERthe workshop

Ch 9

Risk

trea

tmen

t

Ch 9 Action 5. Update risk register with treatment options information Add the treatment information to the Risk Register (Table 15) or to the WARR Tool and note any further actions to be taken.

Priority Level Risk Statement Treatment Options

1 A significant rainfall event in <location> causing flooding will impact the health of persons and cause death(s).

• Further develop and implement early warning systems• Pre-season advisory/awareness campaign on risk mitigation activity and options• Development of a specific flood response plan including a detailed evacuation plan• Establish arrangements with medical services cooperated response

3A significant rainfall event in <location> causing flooding will impact crops and consequently harvest, resulting in financial losses.

• Encourage business continuity plans, e.g. use harvest for stock feed• Land use planning• Culvert maintenance• Improvement in farming dams

3A significant rainfall event in <location> causing flooding will result in evacuation to safe accommodation away from people’s homes, resulting in dispersal of the community.

• Identify access routes for safe self-evacuation• Increase SES resources, e.g. rescue boats• Develop further a detailed evacuation plan including roles and responsibilities and resourcing• Pre-season advisory/awareness campaign on risk mitigation activity and options

Table 15: Updated Risk Register example (only showing the treatment part of the risk register).

9.4. Risk treatment checklist You should have completed the following ‘Risk treatment’ tasks before moving on:

Identify all treatment options.

Evaluate and selected appropriate treatment options for each risk statement.

Develop a treatment plant.

Update the Risk Register or WARR Tool.

Ch 9

Risk treatment


AFTERthe workshop

10. Monitoring and reviewAn essential component in ERM is to establish continuous monitoring and review (Figure 22) of the risk(s) in order to evaluate the effectiveness of existing controls, and account for any change in circumstance. All stages of the process are subject to regular checks to ensure that information is relevant, up-to-date and the most efficient ERM approach is in place.

A yearly review is recommended to capture any significant changes of the community environment and track how treatment strategies are progressing. A substational review that reassesses the risk should be done every five years.

Figure 22: ERM process – Monitoring and review. 2

10.1 Objective To ensure that the ERM process, the risk register and the treatment plan remain current and valid; and that any change in circumstance is accounted for.

10.2. Output (1) Principles and practice of the ERM process are up-to-date.

(2) Confirmation that the most appropriate treatment options are in place and effective.

(3) Updated risk register.

10.3. Actions

1 Review the scope

2 Review the risks - consider changes in the hazard, exposure and vulnerability

3 Monitor and review risk treatment options

4 Record all results and modifications

Mon

itorin

g an

d re

view

Ch 10


Workshop

Establish the scope

Risk identification

Risk analysis

Risk evaluation

Risk treatment

Com

mun

icati

on a

nd c

onsu

ltatio

nM

ON

ITOR AN

D REVIEW


AFTERthe workshop

Action 1. Review the scopeIdentify any changes in circumstance that may change any part of the community environment, the scope, or the risk management framework (Chapter 2). Consider changes in the five key areas (Chapter 6), regardless of how significant these may be. Priorities and perceptions of risk by the community do change over time.

Examples of change are illustrated in Table 16; however please note that these examples are just a select number of the many factors that must be considered when re-evaluating the community environment context.

Action 2. Review the risksHaving accounted for any changes to the community environment context, it is necessary to

re-evaluate changes in the hazard(s). This should consider changes in:

• the frequency of the hazard

• the scale of the hazard

• the likelihood of the hazard

• the exposure to the hazard

• the vulnerably of infrastructure and the population

This may mean re-visiting the risk identification, analysis and evaluation phases of the ERM process. You will need to:

• ensure that current, relevant information is used in order to identify likelihood, consequence and confidence levels.

• consider information gathered from emergency events that may have occurred since the previous review.

Table 16: Abridged examples of change in the community environment context.

Key Area: Examples of change:

People A change in the populationEconomy A change in the current state of the local economy, such as a

change in predominant industryEnvironment Changes in conservation areas, sensitive areas etc.Social setting Changes in the resilience of the communityPublic Administration Changes in in the capability of the current governing body

Ch 10

Monitoring and review


AFTERthe workshop

Monitoring and Review

Ch 10

Defin

ition

– G

loss

ary

Ch 11

Mon

itorin

g an

d re

view

Ch 10 Action 3. Monitor and review risk treatment strategiesIt is essential to continuously monitor and review the current agreed risk treatments and how effective they are. In addition, it is important to ensure that identified controls are operating efficiently and identify any changes that may have occurred or are anticipated to.

Remember: Any identified changes in circumstance may impact risk treatment decisions. Therefore if risk identification, analysis and/or evaluation are re-visited, risk treatment may also need to be modified. !

Action 4. Record all results and modificationsRegular reports should be generated, and distributed to stakeholders, on the status and progress of the ERM process. These reports should contain critical information such as any change in circumstance and/or any modifications in risk identification, analysis, evaluation and/or treatment. Record recommendations for improvement or changes to the ERM process. The Risk Register or the WARR Tool should be updated with any changes.


Ch 10 Chapter 11. Definitions

Defin

ition

– G

loss

ary

Ch 11

All Hazards 27 Hazards prescribed in the EM Act 2005 and Emergency Management Regulations 2006 (the EM Regulations).

Annual exceedance probability (AEP)

The probability of an emergency event of a given size or larger occurring in a given year, expressed as a percentage.

AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 International standard for risk management which forms the basis of the Emergency Risk Management Process.

Community A group of people with a commonality of association and generally defined by location, shared experience or function.

Confidence The trustworthiness or reliability of the evidence that supports risk assessments.

Consequence Impact(s) of an event on the five key areas: environment, economy, people, social setting and public administration.

Control A measure that modifies risk. This may be an existing process, policy, device, practice or other action that acts to minimise negative risk or enhance positive opportunities.

Control expediency The ability of the control to be used or deployed readily in an acceptable manner.

Control strength The ability of the control to achieve objectives when required and operating as intended.

Elements at risk Components of the five key areas which may be at risk from hazards.Emergency The occurrence or imminent occurrence of a hazard which is of such

a nature or magnitude that it requires a significant and coordinated response (s.3 EM Act).

Emergency Risk Management (ERM)

A systematic process which contributes to the wellbeing of communities and the environment. The process considers the likely effects of hazardous events and the controls by which they can be minimised.

Event Occurrence or change of a particular set of circumstances.Frequency A measure of the number of occurrences per unit of time.Hazard Source of potential harm or a situation with a potential to cause loss.Impact To have a noticeable or marked effect on.Level of risk (or risk level) Magnitude of a risk or a combination of risks, expressed in terms of the

combination of consequences and their likelihood.Likelihood Chance of something happening. It is used as a general description of

probability and may be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively.Loss Any negative consequence or adverse effect, financial or otherwise.Matrix (plural matrices) A graphical means of comparing and contrasting two elements.Monitoring To check, supervise, observe critically or record the progress of an

activity, action or system on a regular basis in order to identify change.Organisation Group of people and facilities with an arrangement of responsibilities,

authorities and relationships.Preparedness Preparation for response to an emergency.Prevention The mitigation or prevention of the probability of the occurrence of, and

the potential adverse effects of, an emergency.Probability A measure of the chance of occurrence expressed as a number between

0 (uncertainty) and 1 (absolute certainty). “Frequency” or “likelihood” rather than “probability” may be used in describing risk.

Recovery The support of emergency affected communities in the reconstruction and restoration of physical infrastructure, the environment and community, psychological and economic wellbeing.

Table 17: Terms used throughout the series of State EM documents have the meanings given in section 3 of the EM Act, and the State EM Glossary; specific definitions relevant to this guide are listed below.

Ch 11

Definitions



Definition – Glossary

Ch 11

Residual risk Risk remaining after risk treatment. Following implementation of risk treatment, residual risk can also be referred to as retained risk.

Resilience 1 The ability of a system, community or society, exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structure and functions. This is determined by the degree to which the community has the necessary resources and is capable or organising itself both prior to and during times of need.

Response The combatting of the effects of an emergency, provision of emergency assistance for casualties, reduction of further damage, and help to speed recover.

Risk 1 The combination of the probability of an event and its negative consequences.

Risk analysis Process to comprehend the nature of risk and to determine the level of risk.

Risk assessment The overall process of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation.

Risk criteria The State’s endorsed risk criteria and associated tools and guidelines which form the minimum required level of analysis/reporting.

Risk evaluation Process of comparing the results of risk analysis with risk criteria to determine whether the risk and/or its magnitude are/is acceptable or tolerable.

Risk identification The process of finding, recognising and describing risks.Risk management Coordinated activities of an organisation or a government to direct and

control risk.Risk management process The systematic application of management of policies, procedures and

practices to the tasks of communicating, consulting, establishing the context, and identifying, analysing, evaluating, treating, monitoring and reviewing risk.

Risk reduction Actions taken to lessen the likelihood, negative consequences, or both, associated with a risk.

Risk register A document usually presented in a tabular form which lists concisely the following information for each risk: The risk statement, source, hazard, impact area, prevention/preparedness controls, recovery/response controls, level of existing controls, likelihood level, risk level, confidence level, treatment strategy.

Risk source An element which, alone or in combination, has the intrinsic potential to give rise to risk.

Risk tolerance An organisation’s or stakeholder’s readiness to bear the risk after risk treatment to achieve its objectives.

Risk treatment Process of selection and implementation of measures to modify risk. The term “risk treatment” is sometimes used for the controls themselves.

Stakeholders A person, group of people or organisation that can affect, be affected by or perceive themselves to be affected by a decision or activity.

Susceptibility The potential to be affected by loss.Vulnerability 1 The characterisitcs and circumstances of a community, system or

asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard. There are many aspects of vulnerability, arising from various physical, social, economic, and environmental factors that vary within a community and over time.

Refe

renc

es

Ch 12

Defin

ition

s

Ch 11

1 UNISDR - Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction.


Ch 11 Chapter 12. References

Refe

renc

es

Ch 12Ch 12

References

1. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) (2009). Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland. Available from: http://www.unisdr.org/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf

2. Australian/New Zealand Standard (2009). AS/NZS ISO 31000 Risk management - Principles and guidelines. Reproduced under the SAI Global copyright Licence 1411-c083.

3. Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department (2015). National Emergency Risk Assessment Guidelines (NERAG) Handbook 10. Accessed under Creative Commons BY licence, licence conditions at www.creativecommons.org.au.


Appendices

Appendix A – Local risk assessment summary document

An electronic version of this document can be found on the SEMC website.

Local Risk Assessment Summary DocumentLocal government Name:____________________________Date:___________

Hazard(s) assessed: Date of risk assessment workshop:

Risk assessment workshop coordinator:

Risk assessment workshop facilitator:

Other persons who aided in workshop development (including scenario development)

Name Task responsibility

Please attached workshop attendance registers. Alternatively, please enter the workshop attendance information in the table found at the back of this document.

Appe

ndix

A


Scenario details:Please enter details of the emergency event scenario(s) used in the risk assessment workshop FOR ALL HAZARDS ASSESSED. For example: location of emergency event, magnitude, duration, time of year, timeline of events, climatic conditions.

Tailored Risk Criteria elements used in the risk assessment workshops:

Population:

Gross Area Product: $

If you have used the Scenario Development Template found online, simply attach it here.

Please attach your risk register, completed in the risk assessment workshop.

Appendix A


Ris

kR

isk

Prio

rity

Leve

lTr

eatm

ent r

equi

rem

ent

Prel

imin

ary

trea

tmen

t su

gges

tions

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Priority risks identified:Please enter all priority risks, including priority level as shown in your risk register. If treatment is required, please enter preliminary treatment suggestions.

Appe

ndix

A


Name Organisation/AgencyRisk assessment

workshop(s) attended

Risk assessment workshop attendance Appendix A


Appendix B – Workshop checklist

Table 18: Tasks to do and materials required for the risk assessment workshop.

Task Completed

Ensure these tasks have been/will be carried out:Stakeholder invitations sentVenue and catering arrangedHazard scenario finalisedRisk statements finalisedVulnerability/impact presentation (if applicable)Scenario presentation (if applicable)Agenda has been sent Hazard context presentations arranged (if applicable)Workshop materialsAgendaRisk statements in template for all participants and facilitatorsWARR Tool with preloaded risk statementsPowerpoint presentation with risk statementsHazard video(s)Printed consequence and confidence tablesParticipant name tagsNERAG 2015Western Australian Emergency Risk Management Guide (this guide)Laptop, projector, speakers, laser pointerMaps, handouts, etc., as appropriate

Ap C

Appe

ndix

B


Table 19: Project Plan template.3

Ap C

Objectives

Responsibilities

Scope

Supporting evidence and expertiseCommunication and consultationStakeholders

Risk Criteria People:

Economy:

Public Administration:

Social Setting:

Environment:

Project Plan template requirements

Appendix C – Establish the scope

Appendix C



Appendices

Appendix D – Risk Analysis

Level Control strength Control expediency

High Control is highly effective in reducing the level of risk

The control is frequently applied.

Medium Control is effective in reducing the level of risk

The control is infrequently applied and is outside of the operators’ everyday experience.The use of the control has been foreseen and plans for its application have been prepared and tested.Some extraordinary cost may be required to apply the control.

Low Control has some effect in reducing the level of risk

The control is applied rarely and operators may not have experienced using it.The use of the control may have been foreseen and plans for its application may have been considered, but it is not part of normal operational protocols and has been tested.Extraordinary cost is required to apply the control, which may be difficult to obtain.

Very low Control has almost no effect in reducing the level of risk

Application of the control is outside of the experience and planning of operators, with no effective procedures or plans for its operation.It has not been foreseen that the control will ever need to be used.The application of the control requires significant cost over and above existing resources, and the cost will most likely be objected to by a number of stakeholders.

Determining the level of existing controls is achieved using a multicriteria analysis. Table 20 provides generic qualitative descriptors of levels of control. Control strength refers to the ability of the control, or group of controls, to achieve its objective if it operates as intended. Control expediency refers to the ability of the control to be used/deployed readily and the control’s acceptability to stakeholders.

Note that a single control may have different levels of strength and expediency. Using the level of control strength and expediency, the overall level of existing control can be determined using the control level matrix (Table 21).

Table 20: Qualitative descriptors of control strength and expediency. 3

Ap E

Appe

ndice

s

Ap E

Appe

ndix

D



Ap E

Appe

ndice

s

Control expediency

Control strength a Very low Low Medium High

High Low Medium Medium High

Medium Low Medium Medium Medium

Low Very low Low Medium Medium

Very low Very low Very low Low Low

b

Table 21: Level of existing control matrix. 3

Notes: a How well does the control reduce risk?

b How easily can the control be activated and used?

Ap E

Impact category ExplanationMinor No permanent loss likely; unassisted recovery to pre-existing state likely

in a short time frame.Significant Level of uncertainty about full recovery; use existing resources to

manage recovery and/or repopulation in the short term, creating high likelihood of return to pre-existing conditions.

Severe Requires major program of interventions and recovery to return to steady stable state. Return to original ecosystem unlikely.

Permanent Permanent loss of species or ecosystem. Rehabilitation efforts focus on land stability and mitigation environmental risks.

Table 22: Environment impact definitions. 3

Appendix D



Risk no. Risk Statement Risk Source

Hazard Impact Area

Existing Prevention/Preparedness Controls

Existing Recovery/Response Controls

AEP Consequence Level

Likelihood Level

Risk Level

Confidence Level

Risk Priority

Treatment Options


Severe Rainfall

Flood People • Early warning system

• Flood forecasting

• Flood information brochures pre-season

• Flood awareness kits

• SES rescue boats available but limited

• Evacuation plan including shelters

0.05 Major Likely Extreme Moderate 1 • Further develop and implement early warning systems• Pre-season advisory/awareness campaign on risk mitigation activity and options• Development of a specific flood response plan including a detailed evacuation plan• Establish arrangements with medical services cooperated response

2 A significant rainfall event in <location> causing flooding will impact crops and consequently harvest, resulting in financial losses.

Severe Rainfall

Flood Economy • Early warning system


• Drainage system maintenance

• Farm dams

• Some business continuity plans in place• Land use zoning

0.05 Moderate Unlikely Medium Moderate 3 • Encourage business continuity plans, e.g. use harvest for stock feed• Land use planning• Culvert maintenance• Improvement in farming dams

3 There is a risk that a flood will cause substantial damage to infrastructure services that may result in shutdown and inconvenience to residents for periods 24 hours or more.

Severe rainfall


• Early warning system


• Radio announcements



• Evacuation signs

0.05 Moderate Likely High High 3 • Identify access routes for safe self-evacuation• Increase SES resources, e.g. rescue boats• Develop further a detailed evacuation plan including roles and responsibilities and resourcing• Pre-season advisory/awareness campaign on risk mitigation activity and options

Table 23 – Complete example of a Risk Register based on a fictional flood scenario.

Appe

ndix

D


Risk no. Risk Statement Risk Source

Hazard Impact Area

Existing Prevention/Preparedness Controls



Likelihood Level

Risk Level

Confidence Level

Risk Priority

Treatment Options


Severe Rainfall

Flood People • Early warning system


• Flood information brochures pre-season




0.05 Major Likely Extreme Moderate 1 • Further develop and implement early warning systems• Pre-season advisory/awareness campaign on risk mitigation activity and options• Development of a specific flood response plan including a detailed evacuation plan• Establish arrangements with medical services cooperated response

2 A significant rainfall event in <location> causing flooding will impact crops and consequently harvest, resulting in financial losses.

Severe Rainfall

Flood Economy • Early warning system


• Drainage system maintenance

• Farm dams

• Some business continuity plans in place• Land use zoning

0.05 Moderate Unlikely Medium Moderate 3 • Encourage business continuity plans, e.g. use harvest for stock feed• Land use planning• Culvert maintenance• Improvement in farming dams

3 There is a risk that a flood will cause substantial damage to infrastructure services that may result in shutdown and inconvenience to residents for periods 24 hours or more.

Severe rainfall


• Early warning system


• Radio announcements



• Evacuation signs

0.05 Moderate Likely High High 3 • Identify access routes for safe self-evacuation• Increase SES resources, e.g. rescue boats• Develop further a detailed evacuation plan including roles and responsibilities and resourcing• Pre-season advisory/awareness campaign on risk mitigation activity and options

Appendix D


Risk no. Risk Statement Risk source

Hazard Impact Area Existing prevention/preparedness controls



Likelihood Level

Risk Level Confidence level

Risk Priority Treatment Options

Table 24 – Risk Register template.

Note: It is understood that some Local Governments record residual risk, residual consequence and residual likelihood in the Risk Register. If this is the case, feel free to add the appropriate columns.

Appe

ndix

D


Risk no. Risk Statement Risk source

Hazard Impact Area Existing prevention/preparedness controls



Likelihood Level

Risk Level Confidence level

Risk Priority Treatment Options

Appendix D


People Describes the deaths and injuries as a direct result of the emergency event.

Mortality is defined as the number of deaths; as a percentage of the population of the study area.

Environment Relates to the loss of species and landscapes, and loss of environment value, as a result of the emergency event.

Economy Relates to the financial and economic losses resulting directly from damage due to the emergency event.

Social setting Relates to the effect on communities from the emergency event, as distinct from the individual impacts assessed in the people category.

Public administration Relates to the impact(s) of the emergency event on the delivery of core functions of the governing bodies for the community.

Key impact area definitions

Appendix E – Key impact area definitions

Table 25: Key impact area definitions. 3 Appendices

Ap A

Appe

ndix

E



Appendix F – Risk Identification and risk statements

Haz

ard

and

AEP

Ant

icip

ated

hig

h le

vel i

mpa

cts

Sour

ceD

eath

s/in

jurie

s

Mag

nitu

deIn

fras

truc

ture

affe

cted

(e.g

. roa

ds, r

ail,

brid

ges,

ser

vice

s)

Dur

atio

nO

ther

Loca

tion/

path

Tim

e of

yea

r/tim

e of

day

Tim

elin

e of

eve

nts

Cha

ract

eris

tics

(e.g

. am

ount

of r

ainf

all,

win

d co

nditi

ons,

fire

wea

ther

, af

ters

hock

s, ty

pe o

f fre

ight

, an

tece

dent

con

ditio

ns o

f flo

od p

lain

s)

Haz

ard

scen

ario

tem

plat

eTable 26: Hazard scenario development template.

Ap A

Appendix F


Risk statement examplesPlease note that the following risk statements are entirely fictional and used for illustration purposes only. Highlighted are the fundamental components that contribute to a risk statement: source, emergency event, impact area and consequences.

A risk statement database is available on the SEMC website containing generic statement which can be modified to suit your needs.

A winter storm resulting in a tornado through <location> will impact power infrastructure, resulting in

Emergency Event

recovery costs and/or financial losses.

Consequences

Impact area

A heatwave in <location> will impact the health of people and cause death(s).

Emergency Event ConsequencesImpact area

A magnitude 6.2 earthquake in <location> will cause evacuations to safe accommodation, resulting in a

Emergency Event

dispersal of the community.

Consequences

Impact area

Source of risk

Economy

People

Social setting

Appe

ndix

F


A winter storm resulting in a tornado through <location> will impact power infrastructure, resulting in

A ship collision resulting in an oil spill on the <location> coastline will cause direct and/or indirect

Emergency Event

impacts to the fisheries industry, resulting in financial losses.

ConsequencesImpact area

A category 4 slow-moving cyclone will impact the day-to-day functionality of facilities for vulnerable people

Emergency Event

(e.g. aged, childcare, disability), impacting community wellbeing.

Consequences

Impact area

Source of risk

Dry lightning resulting in a bushfire in <location> will impact native vegetation,

Emergency Event

impacting the <name> species.

Consequences

Impact areaSource of risk

Environment

Economy

Social setting

Appendix F


Priority General descriptor: action pathway

1Highest priority for further investigation and/or treatment, and the highest authority relevant to context of risk assessment must be formally informed of risks. Each risk must be examined, and any actions of further investigation and/or risk treatment are to be documented, reported to and approved by that highest authority.

2High priority for further investigation and/or treatment, and the highest authority relevant to context of risk assessment should be formally informed of risks. Further investigations and treatment plans should be developed.

3Medium priority for further investigation and/or treatment. Actions regarding investigation and risk treatment should be delegated to appropriate level of organisation, and further investigations and treatment plans may be developed.

4Low priority for further investigation and/or treatment. Actions regarding investigation and risk treatment should be delegated to appropriate level of organisation, and further investigations and treatment plans may be developed.

5 Broadly acceptable risk. No action required beyond monitoring of risk level and priority during monitoring and review phase.

Table 27: Priority descriptions. 3

Appendix G – Risk priority

Priority is determined automatically by the WARR Tool. If using the paper version of the Risk Register, then information about determining priority is provided as follows. The confidence level in the risk assessment (Chapter 7) is used to select the table that is used to determine priority. For example, a risk with a major consequence and a rare likelihood that has been assessed with the highest confidence level would lead to a risk priority of 3, using Table 28. If the same risk was assessed with a low confidence level the risk priority would be a priority of 2, using Table 31.

Table 28 to Table 32 are used to determine the priority level based on the level of overall confidence for the risk, and the likelihood and consequence levels.

Appe

ndix

G



CONSEQUENCE

LIKELIHOOD Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

Almost Certain 4 4 3 2 1

Likely 5 4 4 2 2

Unlikely 5 5 4 3 2

Rare 5 5 5 3 3

Very Rare 5 5 5 4 3

Extremely Rare 5 5 5 4 4

Table 28: Priority levels at highest confidence.3

CONSEQUENCE



Likely 4 4 3 2 1

Unlikely 5 4 3 2 2

Rare 5 5 4 3 2

Very Rare 5 5 4 3 3


Table 29: Priority levels at high confidence.3

CONSEQUENCE



Likely 4 3 2 1 1

Unlikely 4 4 3 2 1

Rare 5 4 3 2 2

Very Rare 5 5 4 3 2


Table 30: Priority levels at moderate confidence.3

Appendix G



CONSEQUENCE



Likely 3 3 2 1 1

Unlikely 4 3 2 1 1

Rare 4 4 3 2 1

Very Rare 5 4 3 2 2


Table 31: Priority levels at low confidence.3

CONSEQUENCE



Likely 3 2 1 1 1

Unlikely 3 3 2 1 1

Rare 4 3 2 1 1

Very Rare 4 4 3 2 1


Table 32: Priority levels at lowest confidence.3

Ap E

Appe

ndice

s

Appe

ndix

G



Ap E

Appe

ndice

sAppendix H

Appendix H – Prescribed hazards

Hazard Hazard Management Agency Controlling Agency

Air Crash Commissioner of Police WA Police

Animal and Plant Biosecurity

Agriculture Director General Department of Agriculture and Food WA (DAFWA)

Collapse Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner

Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES)

Cyclone Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner

DFES

Earthquake Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner

DFES

Electricity Energy Supply Disruption

Coordinator of Energy Public Utilities Office, Department of Finance

Fire Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner

DFES within gazetted fire districts or where DFES brigade or unit established; Department of Parks and Wildlife (P&W) on land it manages outside gazetted fire districts; and Local government in local government districts outside of gazetted fire districts and P&W land.

Flood Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner

DFES

Gas Energy Supply Disruption

Coordinator of Energy Public Public Utilities Office, Department of Finance

Hazardous Material – Biological

State Health Coordinator WA Health

Hazardous Material – Chemical, Radiological

Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner

DFES

Heatwave State Health Coordinator WA Health

Human Epidemic State Human Epidemic Controller WA Health

Land Search Commissioner of Police WA Police

Liquid Fuel Energy Supply Disruption

Coordinator of Energy Public Utilities Office, Department of Finance

Marine Oil Pollution Marine Safety, General Manager Department of Transport (DoT), Marine Safety (State waters, shipping and pilotage waters, port waters - Level 2/3); Port Authority (port waters - Level 1); Petroleum titleholder (State waters - Level 1).

Marine Search Commissioner of Police WA Police

Marine Transport Emergency

Marine Safety, General Manager DoT Marine Safety (State waters, shipping and pilotage waters, port waters - Level 2/3); Port Authority (port waters - Level 1).

Radiation Nuclear Powered Warships

Commissioner of Police WA Police

Rail Crash – PTA Network

Public Transport Authority (PTA) PTA or Police for Emergency Situation

Rail Crash – Brookfield Rail Network

Brookfield Rail Pty Ltd Brookfield Rail

Road Crash Commissioner of Police WA Police

Space Debris Re–entry Commissioner of Police WA Police

Storm Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner

DFES

Terrorist Act Commissioner of Police WA Police

Tsunami Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner

DFES

Table 33: Prescricbed hazards, Hazard Management Agency and controlling agency. Please refer to the SEMC website for the most up to date list.

SEMC SECRETARIAT20 Southport streetWest Leederville WA 6007

T. (08) 9482 1700E. [email protected]. www.semc.wa.gov.au

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN EMERGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT … Documents... · 2016-11-07 · north, moving...

Documents

Transcript of WESTERN AUSTRALIAN EMERGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT … Documents... · 2016-11-07 · north, moving...